Michael Cordell and Tammy Cordell v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

• Court: District Court, M.D. Georgia
• Decided: March 20, 2026
• Docket: 5:25-cv-00084
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION

MICHAEL CORDELL AND : TAMMY CORDELL, : : Plaintiffs, : : v. : Case No.: 5:25-cv-00084-CAR : STATE FARM FIRE AND : CASUALTY COMPANY, : : Defendant. : _________________________________ :

ORDER ON JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL Before the Court is the Parties’ Joint Stipulation of Dismissal of Less than All Claims [Doc. 24] requesting the Court to dismiss Plaintiffs’ extra-contractual claims—but not Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim. Because the Parties request a “court order[]” for the voluntary dismissal of Plaintiffs’ extra-contractual claims, it appears the Parties brought this Motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). Rule 41(a)(2) provides “[e]xcept as provided in Rule 41(a)(1), an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff's request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper.”1 “[U]nder Rule 41(a), an ‘action’ refers to all claims that an individual plaintiff has brought against an individual

1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) (emphasis added). 1 defendant[.]”2 Because “a Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal can only be for an entire action, and not an individual claim[,]” the Parties’ Motion is procedurally improper.3 Accordingly, the

Court DISMISSES the Motion as procedurally improper [Doc. 24]. SO ORDERED, this 20th day of March, 2026. s/ C. Ashley Royal_________________ C. ASHLEY ROYAL, SENIOR JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 Weinstein v. 440 Corp., 146 F.4th 1046, 1051 (11th Cir. 2025). 3 Rosell v. VMSB, LLC, 67 F.4th 1141, 1144 (11th Cir. 2023). 2