From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Santiago v. Swain

United States District Court, Middle District of Florida
Mar 19, 2024
3:21-cv-886-MMH-MCR (M.D. Fla. Mar. 19, 2024)

Opinion

3:21-cv-886-MMH-MCR

03-19-2024

HEATHER SANTIAGO, Plaintiff, v. OFFICER SHAWN SWAIN, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

MARCIA MORALES HOWARD, United States District Judge.

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Joint Stipulation of Dismissal for Claims Against Only Defendants Shawn Swain and Jim Godwin (Dkt. No. 80; Stipulation) filed on March 12, 2024. In the Stipulation, the parties request dismissal of the claims raised by Plaintiff against Defendants Shawn Swain and Jim Godwin only. See Stipulation at 1. The Court notes that the Stipulation is not signed by “all parties who have appeared” in this lawsuit and is therefore ineffective under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule(s)). See City of Jacksonville v. Jacksonville Hosp. Holdings, L.P., 82 F.4th 1031, 1034 (11th Cir. 2023); see also Sanchez v. Disc. Rock & Sand, Inc., 84 F.4th 1283, 1291-92 (11th Cir. 2023). As such, the Court construes the stipulation as a request by Plaintiff for dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) which Defendants Shawn Swain and Jim Godwin join in presenting. See Sanchez, 84 F.4th at 1292; see also Plains Growers, Inc. ex rel. Florists' Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ickes-Braun Glasshouses, Inc., 474 F.2d 250, 253 (5th Cir. 1973) (“Where notice of dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) fails, the notice may be considered a motion under Rule 41(a)(2) and the court may order the dismissal.”). Prior to resolving this request, the Court will allow any other party who has appeared in this action the opportunity to object.

In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent all the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.

In addition, the Court notes that the parties who signed the Stipulation do not specify whether they seek dismissal with or without prejudice. Significantly, Rule 41 dictates that “[u]nless the notice or stipulation states otherwise, the dismissal is without prejudice.” See Rule 41(a)(1)(B) (emphasis added). As such, the Court will give the parties the opportunity to file an amended request for dismissal specifying whether they seek dismissal with prejudice. Absent an amended request for dismissal, the Court will construe the Stipulation as a request for dismissal without prejudice. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED:

1. On or before April 1, 2024, Plaintiff and Defendants Shawn Swain and Jim Godwin may file an amended request for dismissal specifying whether they seek dismissal with prejudice.

2. Any party who has appeared in this case shall have up to and including April 8, 2024, to file an objection to the Joint Stipulation of Dismissal for Claims Against Only Defendants Shawn Swain and Jim Godwin (Dkt. No. 80) or any amended request for dismissal filed pursuant to this Order.

DONE AND ORDERED.


Summaries of

Santiago v. Swain

United States District Court, Middle District of Florida
Mar 19, 2024
3:21-cv-886-MMH-MCR (M.D. Fla. Mar. 19, 2024)
Case details for

Santiago v. Swain

Case Details

Full title:HEATHER SANTIAGO, Plaintiff, v. OFFICER SHAWN SWAIN, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Middle District of Florida

Date published: Mar 19, 2024

Citations

3:21-cv-886-MMH-MCR (M.D. Fla. Mar. 19, 2024)