Muro v. Interlock Security Group, Inc.

M.D. Florida

Muro v. Interlock Security Group, Inc.

DecidedJuly 1, 2024

Docket2:23-cv-00616

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Muro v. Interlock Security Group, Inc., (M.D. Fla. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

STEPHANIE MURO,

Plaintiff,

v. 2:23-cv-616-NPM

INTERLOCK SECURITY GROUP, INC.,

Defendant.

ORDER In this Fair Labor Standards Act case, the parties have filed a construed joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice. (Doc. 28). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action voluntarily if a stipulation of dismissal is signed by all parties who have appeared. The dismissal is effective on filing and requires no further action by the court. See Anago Franchising, Inc. v. Shaz, LLC, 677 F.3d 1272, 1278 (11th Cir. 2012). The text of the FLSA does not provide, and no Eleventh Circuit decision has ever held, that FLSA claims are exempt from Rule 41. To the contrary, the Eleventh Circuit has reasoned that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply “in actions brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act no less than in any other case.” Vasconcelo v. Miami Auto Max, Inc., 981 F.3d 934, 942 (11th Cir. 2020); see also Casso-Lopez v. Beach Time Rental Suncoast, LLC, 335 F.R.D. 458, 461-62 (M.D. Fla. 2020) (holding parties may terminate an FLSA case by filing either a Rule 41 stipulation of dismissal with prejudice or a Rule 68(a) notice of acceptance of an offer of judgment “and the district court is immediately powerless to interfere’); Dicomo v. KJIMS Dev. Co., Inc., No. 2:16-cv-327-FtM-99CM, 2016 WL 6678420, *] (M.D. Fla. Nov. 14, 2016) (“[T]he parties may dismiss [an FLSA] case in its entirety pursuant to the Joint Stipulation for Dismissal With Prejudice without further action from the Court as it is unconditional and self-executing.”). Accordingly, this action is dismissed with prejudice with each party to bear its own attorney’s fees and costs. The clerk is directed to enter judgment, deny all pending motions, terminate all scheduled events, and close the case. ORDERED on July 1, 2024.

NICHOLAS P. MIZE United States Magistrate Judge

_2-

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

STEPHANIE MURO,

Plaintiff,

v. 2:23-cv-616-NPM

INTERLOCK SECURITY GROUP, INC.,

Defendant.

ORDER In this Fair Labor Standards Act case, the parties have filed a construed joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice. (Doc. 28). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action voluntarily if a stipulation of dismissal is signed by all parties who have appeared. The dismissal is effective on filing and requires no further action by the court. See Anago Franchising, Inc. v. Shaz, LLC, 677 F.3d 1272, 1278 (11th Cir. 2012). The text of the FLSA does not provide, and no Eleventh Circuit decision has ever held, that FLSA claims are exempt from Rule 41. To the contrary, the Eleventh Circuit has reasoned that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply “in actions brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act no less than in any other case.” Vasconcelo v. Miami Auto Max, Inc., 981 F.3d 934, 942 (11th Cir. 2020); see also Casso-Lopez v. Beach Time Rental Suncoast, LLC, 335 F.R.D. 458, 461-62 (M.D. Fla. 2020) (holding parties may terminate an FLSA case by filing either a Rule 41 stipulation of dismissal with prejudice or a Rule 68(a) notice of acceptance of an offer of judgment “and the district court is immediately powerless to interfere’); Dicomo v. KJIMS Dev. Co., Inc., No. 2:16-cv-327-FtM-99CM, 2016 WL 6678420, *] (M.D. Fla. Nov. 14, 2016) (“[T]he parties may dismiss [an FLSA] case in its entirety pursuant to the Joint Stipulation for Dismissal With Prejudice without further action from the Court as it is unconditional and self-executing.”). Accordingly, this action is dismissed with prejudice with each party to bear its own attorney’s fees and costs. The clerk is directed to enter judgment, deny all pending motions, terminate all scheduled events, and close the case. ORDERED on July 1, 2024.

NICHOLAS P. MIZE United States Magistrate Judge

_2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Muro v. Interlock Security Group, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/muro-v-interlock-security-group-inc-flmd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack