HINSON
v.
COUNTY OF VOLUSIA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court approved a voluntary dismissal of Hinson's civil action against Volusia County, but corrected the procedural deficiency by treating the stipulation as a motion to dismiss under Rule 41(a)(2) rather than Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), because a previously terminated defendant's signature was missing from the joint stipulation.
The stipulation did not comply with Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) because it was not a single document signed by all parties who had appeared, including the terminated defendant. The court therefore construed the stipulation as a motion to dismiss under Rule 41(a)(2) and granted the dismissal on proper terms.
[1] A stipulation of voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires the signature of all parties who have appeared in the action, even if…
[2] A separate notice of joinder to a stipulation of dismissal does not satisfy the requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) for a single stipulation si…
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“[A] Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulation also requires the signature of a party that appeared but has already been removed from an action.”
Establishes that terminated defendants must sign Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulations despite no longer being active parties
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Malik Hinson and Defendant County of Volusia filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal. However, Jeremy Faircloth, who appeared as a defend…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 41(A)(1)(A)(Ii) Voluntary Dismissal cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff, Malik Hinson, and Defendant, the County of Volusia, have filed a Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). (Dkt. 22.) Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) permits a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss his case by filing a joint "stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared." However, the stipulation filed by the parties here was not signed by Jeremy Faircloth, who appeared in this matter as a defendant but has since been terminated. (See id.) See City of Jacksonville v. Jacksonville Hosp. Holdings, 82 F. 4th 1031, 1038 (11th Cir. 2023) ("[A] Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulation also requires the signature of a party that appeared but has already been removed from an action."). Mr. Faircloth subsequently filed a "Joinder of Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal," purporting to join the stipulation. (Dkt. 23.) However, it does not appear that a separate notice of joinder satisfies Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)'s requirement of “a stipulation of dismissal," which appears to contemplate a single document "signed by all parties who have appeared" rather than the piecemeal stipulations presented here. See City of Jacksonville, 82 F. 4th at 1038 (noting that federal courts must "give the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure their plain meaning" (quotation omitted)).
Accordingly, the court construes the stipulation as a motion to dismiss this case under Rule 41(a)(2), which provides for dismissal upon court order “on terms that the court considers proper." See Sanchez v. Discount Rock & Sand, Inc., 84 F. 4th 1283, 1292 (11th Cir. 2023) (“Rule 41(a)(2), by its plain language, doesn't require a motion [a]nd, several times, we've approved dismissal orders that treated Rule 41(a)(1)(A) notices and stipulations as requests for a Rule 41(a)(2) court order."). The court finds the terms the parties seek in the stipulation to be proper, and so grants Plaintiff's construed motion for dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2).
Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED with prejudice. The parties shall bear their own fees and costs. The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate any pending motions and deadlines and to close this case.
ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on May 20, 2025.
JULIE S. SNEED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- City of Jacksonville v. Jacksonville Hospitality Holdings, L.P., 82 F.4th 1031 (11th Cir. 2023)