# Norberg v. Board of County Commissioners of Lincoln County

> District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · November 30, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10388535

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
- **Decided:** November 30, 2020
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10388535

## Opinion text

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

LAUREN NORBERT, individually, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) CIV-20-968-R
)
THE BOARD OF COUNTY )
COMMISSIONERS OF LINCOLN )
COUNTY, ET AL., )
)
Defendant. )

ORDER

Defendant Board of County Commissioners filed a Motion to Dismiss directed to
Plaintiff’s Third Cause of Action wherein she sought relief from the Board for violation of
her civil rights. (Doc. No. 10). In response to the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff filed a Notice
of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice (Doc. No. 15) purporting to dismiss this claim,
whereby she sought to impose municipal liability. (Doc. No. 10).
Although not cited by Plaintiff, the Court presumes she intended to rely on Rule 41
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. However, Rule 41 does not apply to the dismissal
of less than all claims in an action. Gobbo Farms & Orchards v. Poole Chemical Co., 81
F.3d 122, 123 (10th Cir. 1996). Instead, amendment via Rule 15 is the proper procedure
for voluntarily dismissing some, but not all, claims. See Gronholz v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.,
836 F.2d 515, 518 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (treating a dismissal, purportedly brought under Rule
41, of a single claim as an amendment of the complaint); Klay v. United Health Group,
Inc., 376 F.3d 1092, 1106 (11th Cir. 2004) (“‘A plaintiff wishing to eliminate particular
claims... from the action should amend the complaint under Rule 15(a) rather than dismiss
under Rule 41(a)(2).’” (citations omitted)). Rather than requiring Plaintiff to amend, the
Court hereby construes the notice as a motion to amend and DEEMS the Complaint
amended to omit the Third Cause of Action. Defendant Board’s Motion to Dismiss 1s
DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 30" day of November 2020.

DAVID L. RUSSELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10388535. Public record. Not legal advice.