Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Franz v. Doe, 2:18-cv-536-FtM-38MRM. (2018)

Court: District Court, M.D. Florida Number: infdco20181224862 Visitors: 27
Filed: Dec. 21, 2018
Latest Update: Dec. 21, 2018
Summary: ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL , District Judge . Before the Court is Plaintiff's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice and Plaintiff's Amended Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice. (Docs. 27; 28). Plaintiff seeks dismissal of his claims against John Doe and Walmart, Inc. under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420. But federal procedural rules apply in federal court. See Royalty Network, Inc. v. Harris, 756 F.3d 1351 , 1357 (11th Cir. 2014) ("It is well established t
More

ORDER1

Before the Court is Plaintiff's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice and Plaintiff's Amended Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice. (Docs. 27; 28). Plaintiff seeks dismissal of his claims against John Doe and Walmart, Inc. under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420. But federal procedural rules apply in federal court. See Royalty Network, Inc. v. Harris, 756 F.3d 1351, 1357 (11th Cir. 2014) ("It is well established that when a federal court considers a case that arises under its diversity jurisdiction, the court is to apply state substantive law and federal procedural law."). So Plaintiff must comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 if he seeks to dismiss this case. Plaintiff has not done so. The dismissals are thus ineffective. Moving forward, Plaintiff may file a notice of dismissal that complies with Rule 41.

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED:

Plaintiff's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice (Doc. 28) and Plaintiff's Amended Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice (Doc. 28) are DENIED without prejudice.

DONE and ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or websites. These hyperlinks are provided only for users' convenience. Users are cautioned that hyperlinked documents in CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other websites, this Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their websites. Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their websites. The Court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the Court.
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