JAX IMPLANTS AND DENTURES, PLLC
v.
DAVID & ASSOCIATES SPECIALISTS, 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.
The Court held that a stipulation to dismiss punitive damages is not a valid Rule 41 dismissal of an action, but rather a motion to strike the request for punitive damages.
Plaintiff and Defendant Estate filed a stipulation to dismiss Plaintiff's punitive damages claim against the Estate. Plaintiff and the Estate invoked …
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 Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1) cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice of Punitive Damages Request from the Estate of Joel David (Dkt. No. 78; Stipulation) filed on March 15, 2024. In the Stipulation, Plaintiff and Defendant Brian Lee Ware, as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Joel A. David (the Estate) invoke Rule 41, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule(s)), and request dismissal, with prejudice, of Plaintiffs “punitive damages claim" against the Estate. See Stipulation at 1. However, “Rule 41(a)(1), according to its plain text, permits voluntary dismissals only of entire ‘actions,’not claims." See Perry v. Schumacher Grp. of La., 891 F. 3d 954, 956 (11th Cir. 2018). Indeed, "[t]here is no mention in the Rule of the option to stipulate dismissal of a portion of a plaintiff's lawsuit—e.g., a particular claim—while leaving a different part of the lawsuit pending before the trial court." Id. at 958. Moreover, “punitive damages are not a stand-alone claim subject to dismissal, rather it is a form of relief that plaintiffs may be entitled if they prevail on their claims." See Roberts v. Carnival Corp., No. 1:19-cv-25281- KMM, 2020 WL 10898036, at *1 n.1 [fn 1] (S.D. Fla. Oct. 19, 2020); see also Flying Fish Bikes, Inc. v. Giant Bicycle, Inc., No. 8:13-cv-2890-T-23AEP, 2015 WL 3452517, at *3 (M.D. Fla. May 29, 2015).
In light of the foregoing, the Court will construe the Stipulation as a joint motion by Plaintiff and the Estate, to strike Plaintiffs request for punitive damages against the Estate from Plaintiffs Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 48). Based on the representations in the Stipulation, the Court is satisfied that the motion is due to be granted. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED:
Plaintiff's request for an award of punitive damages against Defendant Brian Lee Ware, as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Joel A. David (the Estate) is STRICKEN from the Third Amended Complaint. To the extent Plaintiff has made a demand for punitive damages against any other Defendant, the request remains pending in this case.
DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida this 18th day of March, 2024.
/s/ Marcia Morales Howard
MARCIA MORALES HOWARD
United States District Judge
ja/lc11 Copies to: Counsel of Record
[fn 1]: Punitive damages are not a stand-alone claim subject to dismissal, rather it is a form of relief that plaintiffs may be entitled if they prevail on their claims.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jax Implants & Dentures, PLLC v. David & Assocs. Specialists, LLC, 2020 WL 10898036 (M.D. Fla. 2024)…court." Id. at 958. Moreover, “punitive damages are not a stand-alone claim subject to dismissal, rather it is a form of relief that plaintiffs may be entitled if they prevail on their claims." See Roberts v. Carnival Corp., No. 1:19-cv-25281- KMM, 2020 WL 10898036, at *1 n.1 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 19, 2020); see also Flying Fish Bikes, Inc. v. Giant Bicycle, Inc., No. 8:13-cv-2890-T-23AEP, 2015 WL 3452517, at *3 (M.D. Fla. May 29, 2015). In light of the foregoing, the Court will construe the Stipulation as a joint…1 / 2
-
Smith v. Carnival Corp. & PLC (S.D. Fla. 2023)…ls to meet the standard because “there are no factual allegations supporting the inference that Carnival acted intentionally with regard to Plaintiff’s claim.” ECF No. [44] at 5. Defendant relies on Roberts v. Carnival Corp., No. 1:19-CV-25281-KMM, 2020 WL 10898036 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 19, 2020) for the proposition that summary allegations that a Defendant intentionally concealed a defect are insufficient to support a claim for punitive damages. In Roberts, the court considered a cruise line defendant’s motion to s…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Pamela M. Perry, M.D. v. The Schumacher Grp. OF La., 891 F.3d 954 (11th Cir. 2018)
- Jax Implants & Dentures, PLLC v. David & Assocs. Specialists, LLC, 2020 WL 10898036 (M.D. Fla. 2024)