TJ BIGGZ LLC
v.
BRAINOVA, LLC
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.
TJ Biggz LLC and Brainova, LLC settled their dispute and jointly filed a stipulation for voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The court approved the dismissal and closed the case, though it clarified in a footnote that it cannot retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement absent a specific court order.
The court dismissed the case with prejudice under Rule 41(a). However, the court clarified in a footnote that it cannot retain jurisdiction to enforce the parties' settlement agreement because the filing was not a motion, the parties did not request entry of an order before dismissal, and did not condition dismissal on entry of a court order retaining jurisdiction.
“A stipulation filed under this section is self-executing. Anago Franchising, Inc. v. Shaz, LLC, 677 F. 3d 1272, 1277-78 (11th Cir. 2012). "District courts need not and may not take action after the stipulation becomes effective because the stipulation dismisses the case and divests the district court of jurisdiction."”
Establishes that voluntary dismissals under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) are self-executing and divest the court of jurisdiction without further action.
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 to this civil action filed a joint Stipulation for Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice on May 8, 2025. In the stipulation, the parties stat…
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
This matter is before the Court without argument on a Stipulation For Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice (Dkt. 45), jointly filed by the parties on May 8, 2025. In this document, the parties dismiss this action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), notify the Court that all claims and counterclaims are dismissed with prejudice, and state that the "Court retains [j]urisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement." Id. at 1.
Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order by filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared. A stipulation filed under this section is self-executing. Anago Franchising, Inc. v. Shaz, LLC, 677 F. 3d 1272, 1277–78 (11th Cir. 2012). “District courts need not and may not take action after the stipulation becomes effective because the stipulation dismisses the case and divests the district court of jurisdiction." Id. at 1278.
This case is dismissed with prejudice under Rule 41(a). The Clerk is directed to terminate all deadlines and close this file. [fn 1]
SO ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on May 8, 2025.
ROBERT M. NORWAY United States Magistrate Judge
Copies to:
Counsel of Record
[fn 1]: The Court does not—and indeed cannot—retain jurisdiction to enforce the parties' agreement because the filing is not a motion, the parties did not request entry of an order before dismissal, and did not condition dismissal on entry of a court order retaining jurisdiction. See Anago Franchising, 677 F. 3d at 1280–81 (“The district court did not retain jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement Agreement here because the court issued no such order before the case was dismissed and the stipulation was not conditioned by the entry of an order retaining jurisdiction.").