Amanda Curlee v. AT&T Mobility Services, LLC

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: November 21, 2025
• Docket: 24-13742
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 24-13742 Document: 46-1 Date Filed: 11/21/2025 Page: 1 of 8

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-13742 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

CYNTHIA ALLEN, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs, AMANDA CURLEE, Intervenor Plaintiff-Appellant, versus

AT&T MOBILITY SERVICES, LLC, a.k.a. AT&T Mobility LLC, Defendant-Appellee, AT&T SERVICES, INC., Defendant. USCA11 Case: 24-13742 Document: 46-1 Date Filed: 11/21/2025 Page: 2 of 8

2 Opinion of the Court 24-13742 ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 1:18-cv-03730-WMR ____________________

Before JORDAN, LUCK, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: This is an appeal from a district court’s dismissal of a puta- tive class member’s complaint-in-intervention that raises a ques- tion about finality under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The original plaintiff, Cynthia Allen, alleged in her first complaint that her employer, AT&T Mobility Services, LLC, and its policy writer, AT&T Ser- vices, Inc., instituted policies that discriminated against pregnant employees. AT&T Services moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and Allen filed an amended complaint against only AT&T Mobility. Allen and her co-plaintiff later settled with AT&T Mobility, and those three parties signed a joint stipulation purporting to vol- untarily dismiss the remaining claims. Amanda Curlee, a putative class member, then moved for leave to intervene, and the district court granted her motion. After further proceedings, including an appeal to this court, Allen v. AT&T Mobility Servs., LLC, 104 F.4th 212, 215 (11th Cir. 2024), AT&T Mobility moved to dismiss her complaint-in-intervention for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the district court granted the motion. Curlee appealed. We conclude that Curlee has not appealed from a “final de- cision[]” as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1291. A district court’s decision USCA11 Case: 24-13742 Document: 46-1 Date Filed: 11/21/2025 Page: 3 of 8

24-13742 Opinion of the Court 3

is “final” when all claims of all parties have been resolved. But Al- len’s attempt to dismiss AT&T Mobility was ineffective because AT&T Services appeared as a party but did not sign Allen’s notice of stipulated dismissal. See City of Jacksonville v. Jacksonville Hosp. Holdings, L.P., 82 F.4th 1031 (11th Cir. 2023); FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Because Allen’s claims against AT&T Mobility re- main unresolved, there is no final decision, we are without jurisdic- tion, and we dismiss the appeal. I.

Plaintiff Cynthia Allen filed a putative class action against her employer, AT&T Mobility Services, LLC, and its policy writer, AT&T Services, Inc., alleging pregnancy discrimination under Ti- tle VII. AT&T Services waived service and moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Before the district court could rule on the motion, Allen filed an amended complaint against only AT&T Mobility. Allen later moved for class certification, and the district court denied the motion. Allen asked us to immediately review that denial, but we declined. See FED. R. CIV. P. 23(f). Allen then settled with AT&T Mobility and filed a joint stipulation of volun- tary dismissal. The stipulation of dismissal was signed by Allen, her co-plaintiff, and AT&T Mobility but not AT&T Services. Amanda Curlee, who alleges that she would have been a member of Allen’s class, sought to intervene to appeal the district court’s denial of class certification. The district court granted her motion to intervene, and Curlee filed a notice of appeal challenging USCA11 Case: 24-13742 Document: 46-1 Date Filed: 11/21/2025 Page: 4 of 8

4 Opinion of the Court 24-13742

the class certification decision. Curlee had never litigated her claims in the district court, so we dismissed her appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Allen v. AT&T Mobility Servs., LLC, 104 F.4th 212 (11th Cir. 2024). On remand, AT&T Mobility then moved to dis- miss Curlee’s complaint-in-intervention. The district court granted its motion. Curlee filed a notice of appeal challenging the dismissal. We sua sponte raised the following jurisdictional question: did Allen’s joint stipulation of voluntary dismissal effectively dis- miss her claims against AT&T Mobility even though it was not signed by AT&T Services? II.

“[W]e must evaluate our appellate jurisdiction sua sponte even if the parties have not challenged it.” S.E.C. v. Carrillo, 325 F.3d 1268, 1271 (11th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). We review our ju- risdiction de novo. Vital Pharms., Inc. v. Alfieri, 23 F.4th 1282, 1288 (11th Cir. 2022) (citing United States v. Amodeo, 916 F.3d 967, 970 (11th Cir. 2019)). III.

We dismissed the last appeal in this case because of prob- lems with the finality of Curlee’s claims. Specifically, the district court had made no ruling on Curlee’s complaint-in-intervention at the time of the parties’ first appeal. See Allen, 104 F.4th at 215. But, in our opinion, we noted that there was a jurisdictional problem with the finality of Allen’s claims as well: “was [Allen’s] stipulation of dismissal valid and effective, even though it was not signed by USCA11 Case: 24-13742 Document: 46-1 Date Filed: 11/21/2025 Page: 5 of 8

24-13742 Opinion of the Court 5

an earlier-dismissed defendant, AT&T Services, Inc?” Id. at 215. Alt- hough the parties used the remand from the first appeal as an op- portunity to secure a ruling on Curlee’s claims, they did nothing to resolve the jurisdictional problem with respect to Allen’s claims. So we must now answer the question that we raised in the last appeal. Allen sued two defendants in this case: AT&T Mobility and AT&T Services. Allen resolved her claims against AT&T Services when she filed an amended complaint that dropped it from the case. She resolved her claims against AT&T Mobility, if at all, when she voluntarily dismissed it under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). That rule allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action by filing a stipulation of dismissal “signed by all parties who have ap- peared.” FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The problem is that AT&T Services never signed Allen’s joint stipulation. We have held that a procedurally irregular Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal is ineffective and cannot create finality for purposes of appeal. See City of Jacksonville v. Jacksonville Hosp. Hold- ings, L.P., 82 F.4th 1031, 1036 (11th Cir. 2023). So Allen’s claims against AT&T Mobility remain pending if AT&T Services was a “part[y] who . . . appeared” within the meaning of Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Curlee and AT&T Mobility argue that AT&T Services was not a party that appeared for three reasons. First, Curlee contends that AT&T Services was not a “party” under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) because, although it was sued, served, and appeared, it participated only to contest personal jurisdiction. Second, Curlee and AT&T USCA11 Case: 24-13742 Document: 46-1 Date Filed: 11/21/2025 Page: 6 of 8

6 Opinion of the Court 24-13742

Mobility assert that AT&T Services did not “appear” within the meaning of Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) for the same reason. Third, Curlee argues that Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) does not require a signature from defendants like AT&T Services who were earlier eliminated from the action by an amended complaint. Alternatively, AT&T Mobil- ity argues that AT&T Services in fact signed the stipulation because it was represented by some of AT&T Mobility’s attorneys who signed the document on behalf of AT&T Services. None of these arguments has merit. We address each argu- ment in turn. First, AT&T Services was a “party” to the suit. AT&T Ser- vices was a party to the case because Allen sued it, it signed and returned a waiver of service, and lawyers appeared on its behalf to file a motion to dismiss. A party unambiguously includes “[o]ne by or against whom a lawsuit is brought.” Party, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (12th ed. 2024). Party status attaches to one “against whom a lawsuit is brought,” a defendant, when that defendant is subject to an “authority-asserting measure” that tells it how soon to appear and defend. See Murphy Bros. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 350 (1999) (citing FED. R. CIV. P. 4(a), 12(a)(1)(A)). Al- len brought a lawsuit against AT&T Services as a named defend- ant. And AT&T Services was subject to the required “authority- asserting measure” because it signed and returned a waiver of ser- vice that gave it a deadline for filing an answer or Rule 12 motion. Second, AT&T Services “appeared” because it waived ser- vice of the complaint and filed a motion to dismiss for lack of USCA11 Case: 24-13742 Document: 46-1 Date Filed: 11/21/2025 Page: 7 of 8

24-13742 Opinion of the Court 7

personal jurisdiction. A defendant appears when it “tak[es] part in a lawsuit, whether by formally participating in it or by an answer, demurrer, or motion.” Appearance, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (12th ed. 2024). Although AT&T Services appeared for a particular pur- pose—contesting the district court’s personal jurisdiction—the modern Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) contains no language that limits its ap- plication to particular kinds of appearances. An older version of the rule excluded special appearances made solely to contest personal jurisdiction, but amendments eliminated that restriction after Rule 12 abolished the technical distinction between general and special appearances. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a) advisory committee’s note to 1946 amendment; Prod. Promotions, Inc. v. Cousteau, 495 F.2d 483, 490 (5th Cir. 1974) (citing 5 WRIGHT & MILLER’S FEDERAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE § 1344 (1969)), overruled on other grounds, Ins. Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 702–03 (1982). Third, we have expressly held that Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) re- quires defendants like AT&T Services to sign a stipulation of dis- missal even after they are dismissed. See City of Jacksonville, 82 F.4th at 1038. The Rule says a stipulation of dismissal requires “all par- ties” who have appeared to sign. “[A]ll means all” and includes par- ties that appeared and then were “removed from an action.” Id. (ci- tation omitted). It does not matter why or how AT&T Services was dropped from the case. It was a party who had appeared. For an effective stipulation of dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), all par- ties who have appeared must sign. As we have explained, “there is USCA11 Case: 24-13742 Document: 46-1 Date Filed: 11/21/2025 Page: 8 of 8

8 Opinion of the Court 24-13742

simply no language that qualifies the clause ‘all parties who ap- peared.’” Id. (quoting Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)). Finally, it is incontrovertible that AT&T Services did not sign Allen’s stipulation of dismissal. The stipulation lists all parties to it and does not include AT&T Services. It was signed by AT&T Mobility’s attorneys as “[a]ttorneys for [d]efendant,” and the only defendant that it lists is “[d]efendant AT&T Mobility.” Some of these attorneys had earlier appeared for AT&T Services, but they purported to act for only AT&T Mobility when they signed Allen’s stipulation. Because no one signed the stipulation for AT&T Ser- vices, Allen’s stipulation did not dismiss her claims against AT&T Mobility. Our precedents require us to dismiss this appeal. Nothing prevents the parties from achieving finality on Allen’s claim against AT&T Mobility—through a valid stipulation signed by all parties who have appeared, a court order, an amended complaint, or oth- erwise. As it is, however, Allen’s claims against AT&T Mobility re- main unresolved because the stipulated dismissal was not signed by all parties who had appeared in the action. Because there is no final judgment, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291. IV.

We DISMISS the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.