LENOX
v.
CORNERSTONE BUILDERS OF SW FLORIDA, 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 approved a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice in a Fair Labor Standards Act case between Lenox and Cornerstone Builders. The court held that FLSA claims are not exempt from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, which permits voluntary dismissal by stipulation of all parties.
Parties may dismiss a Fair Labor Standards Act case by filing a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The FLSA text does not exempt such claims from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Eleventh Circuit has held that Rule 41 applies to FLSA actions.
[1] A voluntary dismissal of an action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) is effective upon filing a stipulation signed by all parties who have appeared, r…
[2] Fair Labor Standards Act claims are not exempt from the application of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Rule 41.
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“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.”
Establishes the applicable procedural rule permitting voluntary dismissal by stipulation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLenox filed a Fair Labor Standards Act case against Cornerstone Builders of SW Florida, Inc. The parties subsequently filed a Joint Stipulation of Dis…
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
In this Fair Labor Standards Act case, the parties have filed a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice. (Doc. 10). 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, 461-462 (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, *1 (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. Each party shall bear its own fees and costs. The clerk of court is directed to deny all pending motions, terminate all scheduled events, and close the case.
ORDERED on March 6, 2025
NICHOLAS P. MIZELL United States Magistrate Judge
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Anago Franchising, Inc. v. Shaz, LLC, 677 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir. 2012)
- Vasconcelo v. Miami Auto Max, Inc., 981 F.3d 934 (11th Cir. 2020)