BROWNING v. RICCIO

M.D. Georgia

BROWNING v. RICCIO

DecidedSeptember 29, 2025

Docket7:23-cv-00128

StatusUnknown

This text of BROWNING v. RICCIO (BROWNING v. RICCIO) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

BROWNING v. RICCIO, (M.D. Ga. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IFNO TRH TEH UEN MIITDEDDL SET DATISETSR DICISTT ORFIC GTE COORUGRIAT VALDOSTA DIVISION

ALLEN WAYNE BROWNING & : SHERREE BROWNING, : : Plaintiffs, : : v. : CASE NO.: 7:23-CV-128 (WLS) : JOSEPH ALEXANDER RICCIO, : : Defendant. : : ORDER Before the Court is a Joint Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice (Doc. 24) (“Stipulation”), filed on September 22, 2025. Therein, Plaintiffs attempt to dismiss, with prejudice, their complaint against Defendant Joseph Alexander Riccio pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). In this Stipulation, Plaintiffs include signatures from Attorney for Plaintiffs and Attorney for Riccio. However, Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) provides that “the Plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing: . . . a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared.” (emphasis added). The Eleventh Circuit tells us that when it comes to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), “all means all.” City of Jacksonville v. Jacksonville Hosp. Holdings, L.P., 82 F.4th 1031, 1038 (11th Cir. 2023). Where parties “purport[] to voluntarily dismiss their claims through joint stipulations but [do] not obtain the signatures of ‘all parties who ha[ve] appeared’ . . . the dismissals [are] ineffective.” Id. at 1039. In this case, attorneys for Auto Owners Insurance Company filed an Answer (Doc. 3). Under Local Rule 83.1.3, “[t]he filing of any pleading, unless otherwise specified by the court, shall constitute an appearance by the person(s) signing such pleading.” Therefore, Auto Owners Insurance Company has appeared. Because the instant Stipulation as to Riccio lacks the signatures of all parties who have appeared, it is ineffective. Therefore, the Court REJECTS the Parties’ Stipulation (Doc. 24) without prejudice. Plaintiff’s claims against Riccio remain pending. If Plaintiffs wish to attempt to file an effective Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice as to Riccio, they must do so in compliance with the Rule by Tuesday, October 14, 2025. SO ORDERED, this 29th day of September 2025. /s/ W. Louis Sands___________ W. LOUIS SANDS, SR. JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IFNO TRH TEH UEN MIITDEDDL SET DATISETSR DICISTT ORFIC GTE COORUGRIAT VALDOSTA DIVISION

ALLEN WAYNE BROWNING & : SHERREE BROWNING, : : Plaintiffs, : : v. : CASE NO.: 7:23-CV-128 (WLS) : JOSEPH ALEXANDER RICCIO, : : Defendant. : : ORDER Before the Court is a Joint Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice (Doc. 24) (“Stipulation”), filed on September 22, 2025. Therein, Plaintiffs attempt to dismiss, with prejudice, their complaint against Defendant Joseph Alexander Riccio pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). In this Stipulation, Plaintiffs include signatures from Attorney for Plaintiffs and Attorney for Riccio. However, Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) provides that “the Plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing: . . . a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared.” (emphasis added). The Eleventh Circuit tells us that when it comes to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), “all means all.” City of Jacksonville v. Jacksonville Hosp. Holdings, L.P., 82 F.4th 1031, 1038 (11th Cir. 2023). Where parties “purport[] to voluntarily dismiss their claims through joint stipulations but [do] not obtain the signatures of ‘all parties who ha[ve] appeared’ . . . the dismissals [are] ineffective.” Id. at 1039. In this case, attorneys for Auto Owners Insurance Company filed an Answer (Doc. 3). Under Local Rule 83.1.3, “[t]he filing of any pleading, unless otherwise specified by the court, shall constitute an appearance by the person(s) signing such pleading.” Therefore, Auto Owners Insurance Company has appeared. Because the instant Stipulation as to Riccio lacks the signatures of all parties who have appeared, it is ineffective. Therefore, the Court REJECTS the Parties’ Stipulation (Doc. 24) without prejudice. Plaintiff’s claims against Riccio remain pending. If Plaintiffs wish to attempt to file an effective Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice as to Riccio, they must do so in compliance with the Rule by Tuesday, October 14, 2025. SO ORDERED, this 29th day of September 2025. /s/ W. Louis Sands___________ W. LOUIS SANDS, SR. JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

BROWNING v. RICCIO, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/browning-v-riccio-gamd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack