PEREZ
v.
EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.
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.
The court granted a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims against Experian Information Solutions, Inc. and Oportun, Inc. in a credit reporting dispute case. Although the parties filed a purported stipulation of dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), the court construed it as a Rule 41(a)(2) motion to dismiss because Defendant Equifax did not sign the stipulation, and granted dismissal with prejudice.
The stipulation of dismissal did not comply with Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) because it was not signed by all parties who had appeared (specifically, Equifax did not sign). Therefore, the court construed the filing as a motion to dismiss under Rule 41(a)(2) and granted it on terms the court found proper.
“Rule 41(a) governs the voluntary dismissal of an "action," and "in a multi-defendant lawsuit," such as this case, the word "action" in the rule "can refer to all the claims against one party."”
Establishes that Rule 41(a) can apply to claims against individual defendants in multi-defendant cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Perez filed suit against multiple defendants including Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Oportun, Inc., and Equifax Information Services…
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 Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 41(A)(1)(A)(Ii) Voluntary Dismissal cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff and Defendants Experian Information Solutions, Inc. and Oportun, Inc. have filed a purported stipulation of dismissal with prejudice as to Plaintiff's claims against Experian and Oportun, contemplating that each party will bear its own attorney fees, costs, and expenses. (Dkt. 60.) The purported stipulation invokes Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). (See Dkt. 60 at 1.) Rule 41(a) governs the voluntary dismissal of an "action,” and “in a multi-defendant lawsuit," such as this case, the word "action" in the rule "can refer to all the claims against one party." City of Jacksonville v. Jacksonville Hosp. Holdings, L.P., 82 F. 4th 1031, 1037 (11th Cir. 2023) (quotation omitted). However, Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), which enables a plaintiff to "dismiss an action without a court order by filing ... a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), “requir[es] each and every party that has thus far appeared in a lawsuit to sign [the] stipulation of dismissal," City of Jacksonville, 82 F. 4th at 1038. The purported stipulation does not satisfy this requirement because it is not signed by Defendant Equifax Information Services LLC, (see Dkt. 60), which also appeared as a Defendant in this matter, (see Dkt. 52).
Accordingly, the court construes the purported stipulation as a motion to dismiss under Rule 41(a)(2), which states that "[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." Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). The court considers the purported stipulation's terms to be proper and grants the construed motion to dismiss.
Accordingly:
1. The construed motion to dismiss (Dkt. 60) is GRANTED. 2. Plaintiff's claims against Experian Information Solutions, Inc. and Oportun, Inc. are DISMISSED with prejudice. Plaintiff, Experian, and Oportun shall bear their own attorney fees, costs, and expenses.
3. This case remains closed.
ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on August 1, 2025.
JULIE S. SNEED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- City of Jacksonville v. Jacksonville Hospitality Holdings, L.P., 82 F.4th 1031 (11th Cir. 2023)