ARREDONDO GAVILAN
v.
RCS & COMPANY, 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.
In this FLSA case, the court granted a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice filed by all parties, holding that FLSA claims are not exempt from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), which permits voluntary dismissal by stipulation.
The court held that FLSA claims are not exempt from Rule 41, and parties may dismiss an FLSA action entirely by filing a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice, which is unconditional and self-executing, requiring no further action from the court.
[1] A voluntary dismissal of an action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) is effective upon filing when signed by all parties who have appeared, requiring…
[2] Fair Labor Standards Act claims are not exempt from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Rule 41 governing voluntary dismissals.
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“the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply 'in actions brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act no less than in any other case.'”
Establishes that FLSA claims are subject to standard federal procedural rules, including Rule 41.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties to this Fair Labor Standards Act case filed a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice. All parties who had appeared in the action si…
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. 31). 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, unless otherwise agreed. The clerk is directed to deny all pending motions, terminate all scheduled events, and close the case.
ORDERED on December 13, 2024.
NICHOLAS P. MIZELL United States Magistrate Judge
- 2 -
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)