City of Jacksonville v. Jacksonville Hospitality Holdings L.P.
3:12-cv-00850
| M.D. Fla. | Sep 13, 2023Background
- The City of Jacksonville sued multiple defendants in 2015 for contamination; Continental later impleaded several third parties, including Houston Pipe Line Co. and others.
- Over eight years and with about ten parties involved, many parties filed stipulations under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) purporting to voluntarily dismiss certain defendants or claims.
- Several of those stipulations were signed only by the parties directly resolving the dispute (not by every party who had appeared in the case).
- Continental appealed after the district court denied its Rule 41(a)(2) motion to dismiss Houston and later sanctioned Continental; the Eleventh Circuit raised a jurisdictional question about the earlier Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulations.
- The central legal question was whether “a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared” requires signatures from all parties who have appeared in the lawsuit (broad reading) or only from the plaintiff and the defendant(s) being dismissed (narrow reading).
- The Eleventh Circuit held that the plain text requires signatures from all parties who have appeared in the lawsuit; because multiple stipulations lacked required signatures they were ineffective, so final judgment did not exist and the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires signatures only from the parties involved in the dismissal or from all parties who have appeared in the litigation | Only the plaintiff and the defendant(s) being dismissed need sign; the clause should be read as limited to the parties "in the action" being dismissed | The text is unqualified: "all parties who have appeared" means every party who has appeared in the lawsuit (including previously dismissed parties) | The court adopted the broad/plain-text reading: all parties who have appeared must sign |
| Whether a stipulation lacking signatures of all parties who have appeared can be treated as effective or transformed into a functional Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal | Stipulations signed by the parties to the dismissal should be effective; practical burdens of getting every signature weigh against broad reading | The Rules could have required court involvement (Rule 41(a)(2)) if signatures cannot be obtained; treating unsigned stipulations as effective would risk prejudice and collusion | The court rejected the plaintiff’s practicality argument and noted Rule 41(a)(2) and Rule 54(b) (or amendment) as available alternatives |
| Jurisdictional consequence of defective stipulations | The appeal should proceed despite procedural defects in prior stipulations | If any dismissal is ineffective, there is no final judgment and the appellate court lacks jurisdiction | Because multiple stipulations were defective, final judgment was lacking and the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Esteva, 60 F.4th 664 (11th Cir. 2023) (Rule 41(a) governs entire actions and cannot be used to dismiss individual claims)
- Rosell v. VMSB, LLC, 67 F.4th 1141 (11th Cir. 2023) (Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal likewise applies to entire actions; district court discretion required)
- Pavelic & LeFlore v. Marvel Enter. Grp., 493 U.S. 120 (1989) (plain-meaning approach to interpreting Federal Rules)
- National City Golf Finance v. Scott, 899 F.3d 412 (5th Cir. 2018) (noting in dictum that in multi-defendant suits plaintiffs may single out a defendant for dismissal with signatures from the dismissing parties)
- Klay v. United Healthgroup, Inc., 376 F.3d 1092 (11th Cir. 2004) (recognizes Rule 41(a) can dismiss all claims against a particular defendant)
- Plains Growers ex rel. Florists’ Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ickes-Braun Glasshouses, Inc., 474 F.2d 250 (5th Cir. 1973) (plurality rule permitting dismissal as to one defendant in multi-defendant litigation)
- Castleberry v. Goldome Credit Corp., 408 F.3d 773 (11th Cir. 2005) (final-judgment rule: fewer-than-all claims require Rule 54(b) certification for immediate appeal)