MARTINEZ
v.
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
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.
Martinez sought to voluntarily dismiss Count II of his complaint against Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). The district court held that Rule 41(a) permits dismissal only of entire actions, not individual claims, and therefore construed the notice as consent to defendant's motion to dismiss Count II.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) permits dismissal only of entire actions, not individual claims. Therefore, plaintiffs' attempt to voluntarily dismiss Count II alone was not procedurally appropriate under Rule 41(a).
“A plain reading reveals that the Rule does not authorize the voluntary dismissal of individual claims; rather, the Rule requires that a plaintiff dismiss the entire action.”
Establishes that Rule 41(a) permits only dismissal of entire actions, not individual counts
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company filed a Motion to Dismiss Count II of Plaintiffs' Complaint (Doc. #12). Plaintiffs failed to respond by …
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.
were directed to file a response by this same date. (Doc. #19.) In response, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Count II of Complaint (Doc. #20) seeking dismissal of Count II without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a).
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A). “A plain reading reveals that the Rule does not authorize the voluntary dismissal of individual claims; rather, the Rule requires that a plaintiff dismiss the entire action." In re Esteva, 60 F. 4th 664, 675 (11th Cir. 2023). The same is true of Rule 41(a)(2), which allows dismissal of an
“action” at plaintiff’s request by court order. Rosell v. VMSB, LLC, 67 F. 4th 1141, 1144 (11th Cir. 2023) (In the Eleventh Circuit, “a Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal can only be for an entire action, and not an individual claim.”) See also City of Jacksonville v. Jacksonville Hosp. Holdings, L.P., 82 F. 4th 1031, 1039 (11th Cir. 2023).
While voluntary dismissal is not appropriate, plaintiffs’ notice will be construed as a consent to the motion for dismissal of Count II.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
1. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Count II of Plaintiffs' Complaint (Doc. #12) is GRANTED as unopposed and Count II is dismissed without prejudice.
2. Plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint without Count II.
DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 8th day of April 2025.
JOHN E. STEELE SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: 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)
- Rosell v. VMSB, LLC, 67 F.4th 1141 (11th Cir. 2023)
- Esteva v. UBS Fin. Servs. Inc., 60 F.4th 664 (11th Cir. 2023)