Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

PIRRO v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 5:11-cv-472-Oc-TBS. (2012)

Court: District Court, M.D. Florida Number: infdco20120524a12 Visitors: 2
Filed: May 23, 2012
Latest Update: May 23, 2012
Summary: ORDER THOMAS B. SMITH, Magistrate Judge. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Uncontested Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 19). Plaintiff's counsel appeared before the undersigned in an unrelated matter at which time the Court inquired about the reasons for the motion. Upon due consideration, the undersigned finds that Plaintiff's counsel provided good cause. Pursuant to M.D. FLA. R. 3.01(g), counsel for Plaintiff represents that Defendant's attorney has been contacted and has no objection to the
More

ORDER

THOMAS B. SMITH, Magistrate Judge.

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Uncontested Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 19). Plaintiff's counsel appeared before the undersigned in an unrelated matter at which time the Court inquired about the reasons for the motion. Upon due consideration, the undersigned finds that Plaintiff's counsel provided good cause.

Pursuant to M.D. FLA. R. 3.01(g), counsel for Plaintiff represents that Defendant's attorney has been contacted and has no objection to the dismissal. And, at the hearing, counsel for the Defendant confirmed that he did not object. Plaintiff further represents that Defendant has agreed that each party "would be responsible for their own costs associated with this action." (Id.).

Upon due consideration, the Court will construe the uncontested motion as the joint stipulation of the parties, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). Pursuant to this stipulated dismissal, the undersigned finds that there is no prevailing party in this action and an award of Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA") fees would be inappropriate under these circumstances. See Ruiz v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 189 F. App'x. 112, 113 (3d. Cir. 2006) ("A district court may also enter a voluntary dismissal on the stipulation of the parties pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a), in which case no EAJA fee award is appropriate, as there is no prevailing party.") (citing Melkonyan v, Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 102-03 (1991)).

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's uncontested motion (Doc. 19) is GRANTED. 2. This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 3. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DONE AND ORDERED.

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