Rivera v. O'Reilly Auto Enterprises LLC

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ALEXIS RIVERA, an individual,
Plaintiff,
v.
O’REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES
LLC., and DOES 1 through 10,
Defendants.
Case No. 1:24-cv-00333-JLT-SAB
ORDER TO CONSTRUE PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL
AS MOTION TO AMEND THE
COMPLAINT TO EXCLUDE THE SECOND
AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION
(Doc. 47)
Plaintiff asks this Court to dismiss the second and third claims raised in his Complaint
with prejudice. (See generally Doc. 47.) The Ninth Circuit has held that Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(a)(1) cannot be used to dismiss individual claims against defendants, and that Rule
15 provides the proper mechanism to do so. See Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv.,
403 F.3d 683, 687 (9th Cir. 2005) (“In the specific context of Rule 41(a)(1), we have held that the
Rule does not allow for piecemeal dismissals. Instead, withdrawals of individual claims against a
given defendant are governed by [Rule 15].”); Ethridge v. Harbor House Rest., 861 F.2d 1389,
1392 (9th Cir. 1988) (holding a plaintiff cannot use Rule 41 “to dismiss, unilaterally, a single
claim from a multi-claim complaint.”); but see Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th
Cir. 1997) (“The Plaintiff may dismiss some or all of the defendants, or some or all of his claims,
through a Rule 41(a)(1) notice.”). Thus, the Court will construe Plaintiff’s unopposed request to
dismiss the second and third causes of action as a Rule 15 request to amend the Complaint. See
Hells Canyon Pres. Council, 403 F.3d at 689 (“The fact that a voluntary dismissal of a claim
Case 1:24-cv-00333-JLT-SAB Document 60 Filed 12/31/25 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
`
2
under Rule 41(a) is properly labeled an amendment under Rule 15 is a technical, not a substantive
distinction.”) (quoting Nilssen v. Motorola, Inc., 203 F.3d 782, 784 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that Plaintiff’s complaint filed on March 21, 2024 is
DEEMED AMENDED to omit the failure to accommodate and failure to engage in interactive
process claims.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 31, 2025
Case 1:24-cv-00333-JLT-SAB Document 60 Filed 12/31/25 Page 2 of 2