CHANEL, INC.
v.
PETUNIAS OF NAPLES AND CLAUDETTE WILLIS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Chanel, Inc. sought relief against Petunias of Naples and Claudette Willis. The parties reached a settlement and stipulated to a permanent injunction and dismissal with prejudice. The court adopted the stipulated injunction in part and dismissed the case with prejudice.
The court adopted the Stipulated Permanent Injunction in part and dismissed the case with prejudice. The court retained jurisdiction over enforcement, construction, and modification of the Stipulated Permanent Injunction but declined to retain jurisdiction over the settlement agreement's enforcement, construction, or modification.
[1] A stipulation of dismissal filed pursuant to Fed. …
[2] A court may adopt in part a stipulated permanent injunction.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“is self-executing and dismisses the case upon it becoming effective”
The court's rationale for why the stipulation of dismissal operates automatically under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties stipulated to a Permanent Injunction and filed a Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice. The stipulated injunction requested that the cou…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Self-Executing Dismissal cases and more on FLexlaw
Before the Court are the parties' Stipulated Permanent Injunction (Doc. 19) and Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice (Doc. 20). In their stipulated dismissal, the parties ask the Court to issue an order on the parties' Stipulated Permanent Injunction before dismissing the case. (Doc. 20).
Upon review of the filings and given the parties' agreement, the Court adopts in part the Stipulated Permanent Injunction. [fn 1] As for the parties' stipulation of dismissal with prejudice, it is self-executing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii); Anago Franchising, Inc. v. Shaz, LLC, 677 F. 3d 1272, 1278
[fn 1]: The stipulated injunction asks the Court to retain jurisdiction to make “any further orders necessary or proper for the enforcement, construction, or modification” of the stipulated injunction and the parties' settlement agreement. (Doc. 19). The Court declines to retain jurisdiction over the settlement agreement's enforcement, construction, or modification. The remainder of the stipulated injunction is adopted.
(11th Cir. 2012) (finding a stipulation filed pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) “is self-executing and dismisses the case upon it becoming effective”).
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
1. Except as otherwise outlined in this Order, the Stipulated Permanent Injunction (Doc. 19) is adopted and incorporated herein as part of this Order.
2. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice.
3. The Court retains jurisdiction over the enforcement, construction, and modification of the Stipulated Permanent Injunction.
4. The Court declines to retain jurisdiction over enforcement, construction, or modification of the parties' settlement agreement.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on October 1, 2025.
Sheri Polster Rappell
SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record
2