FIRST MUTUAL GROUP, LP v. FIRESTONE, 2:14-cv-492-FtM-38CM. (2015)
Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
Number: infdco20151103607
Visitors: 6
Filed: Nov. 02, 2015
Latest Update: Nov. 02, 2015
Summary: ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on review of the docket. On August 20, 2015, Plaintiff First Mutual Group, LP attempted to dismiss this action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. (Doc. #37). The Court alerted Plaintiff that this attempt was procedurally improper because once a defendant files an answer, Rule 41 allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action only through a joint stipulation signed by all parties. (Doc. #
Summary: ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on review of the docket. On August 20, 2015, Plaintiff First Mutual Group, LP attempted to dismiss this action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. (Doc. #37). The Court alerted Plaintiff that this attempt was procedurally improper because once a defendant files an answer, Rule 41 allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action only through a joint stipulation signed by all parties. (Doc. #3..
More
ORDER1
SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on review of the docket. On August 20, 2015, Plaintiff First Mutual Group, LP attempted to dismiss this action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. (Doc. #37). The Court alerted Plaintiff that this attempt was procedurally improper because once a defendant files an answer, Rule 41 allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action only through a joint stipulation signed by all parties. (Doc. #38). The Court granted Plaintiff additional time to secure a joint stipulation or prosecute this action further. (Doc. #38).
Two months passed and Plaintiff failed to take any further action. So, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show case as to whether this action will be proceeding or whether it will be dismissed. (Doc. #40). The Court warned Plaintiff that failure to respond to the Order to Show Cause would result in this action being dismissed with prejudice and the possibility of additional sanctions. (Doc. #40). Plaintiff failed to respond. Therefore, the Court finds good cause to dismiss this action with prejudice. See Zocaras v. Castro, 465 F.3d 479, 490 (11th Cir. 2006) ("[T]he power of a court to dismiss a claim is inherent in a trial court's authority to enforce its orders and ensure prompt disposition of legal actions.").
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
1. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice.
2. The Clerk is directed to terminate any pending motions or deadlines, enter judgment accordingly, and close this action.
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
