Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

PROVIDENT BANK v. MILLER, 2:11-cv-350-FtM-CM. (2014)

Court: District Court, M.D. Florida Number: infdco20141204928 Visitors: 20
Filed: Dec. 03, 2014
Latest Update: Dec. 03, 2014
Summary: ORDER CAROL MIRANDO, District Judge. Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Case Pursuant to Court Order ("Motion") (Doc. 28), filed on November 13, 2014. Defendant has not filed a response to the Motion, and the time for doing so has expired. For the reasons that follow, the Motion will be denied without prejudice to be refiled as a joint stipulation for dismissal. While this action was pending, a Suggestion of Bankruptcy and Notice of Operation of Automatic Stay was filed informi
More

ORDER

CAROL MIRANDO, District Judge.

Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Case Pursuant to Court Order ("Motion") (Doc. 28), filed on November 13, 2014. Defendant has not filed a response to the Motion, and the time for doing so has expired. For the reasons that follow, the Motion will be denied without prejudice to be refiled as a joint stipulation for dismissal.

While this action was pending, a Suggestion of Bankruptcy and Notice of Operation of Automatic Stay was filed informing the Court that a voluntary petition for relief was filed in United States Bankruptcy Court on behalf of Defendant John C. Miller. Doc. 20. The Court entered an Order acknowledging operation of the automatic stay, and administratively closed this case. Doc. 22. That Order directed Plaintiff to "promptly move for dismissal of this claim" if the claim is resolved by the bankruptcy proceedings. Id. Plaintiff received a one-time pro-rata distribution as an unsecured creditor from the Chapter 7 Trustee on or about April 23, 2014. Doc. 28 at 1. Thus, pursuant to the Court's Order (Doc. 22), Plaintiff now seeks dismissal of this matter.

Defendant filed an Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses in this matter on July 27, 2011. Doc. 9. The Motion is not stipulated, and once an Answer has been filed a plaintiff must file a stipulated voluntary dismissal that is signed by all parties to the action in order to dismiss the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a).

ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby

ORDERED:

Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Case Pursuant to Court Order (Doc. 28) is DENIED without prejudice. Counsel for Plaintiff is directed to confer with Defendant,1 as required by Local Rule 3.01(g), and move for dismissal if all parties consent. Upon the filing of a joint stipulation, the Court will enter an Order dismissing the case with prejudice.

FootNotes


1. The docket indicates that Defendant is represented by counsel, and upon review it appears that no motion to withdraw was filed. The recent filings by Plaintiff and the Court, however, suggest that Defendant may be proceeding pro se. Plaintiff should confer with counsel if Defendant is still represented, or with Defendant if he is proceeding pro se.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer