BLUEGREEN VACATIONS UNLIMITED, INC.

v.

TIMESHARE TERMINATION TEAM, LLC

S.D. Fla. | 2023-10-25

No. 20-cv-25318

District Court, S.D. Florida (2023)

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.

Holding

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss all claims against the TTT Defendants without prejudice, finding no clear legal prejudice to the defendants.

Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiffs moved to voluntarily dismiss their claims against the TTT Defendants without prejudice. The parties had entered into a settlement agreement…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Topics

Clear Legal Prejudice Entry Of Final Judgment Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 41(A)(2) Permanent Injunction

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Clear Legal Prejudice cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

and BLUEGREEN VACATIONS CORPORATION,

Plaintiffs,

v. TIMESHARE TERMINATION TEAM, LLC, et al.

Defendants. __________________________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

OF ALL CLAIMS AGAINST THE TTT DEFENDANTS

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiffs Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited, Inc. and Bluegreen Vacations Corporation’s (“Plaintiffs” or “Bluegreen”) Motion for Dismissal, Without Prejudice, of All Claims Against the TTT Defendants Only, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), to dismiss the claims that have been asserted against Defendants Brian Stephen Wilbur and Holly Wilbur (“Wilburs”), and Timeshare Termination Team, LLC (“TTT-1”)¹ (TTT-1, TTT-2, and the Wilburs, collectively, the “TTT Defendants”) in this action only, without prejudice, ECF No. . The Court has reviewed the Motion and is otherwise duly advised. “The district court enjoys broad discretion in determining whether to allow a voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2).” Pontenberg v. Bos. Sci. Corp., 252 F. 3d 1253, 1255 (11th Cir. 2001) (citing McCants v. Ford Motor Co., Inc., 781 F. 2d 855, 857 (11th Cir. 1986)). The Eleventh

1. The Motion, ECF No. , is GRANTED.

2. Any claims that have been asserted by Plaintiffs against the TTT Defendants, and only as to the TTT Defendants, are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 3. The Court reserves jurisdiction to enforce the Final Permanent Injunction, ECF No. , and the imposition of any penalties contemplated therein upon any breach of the Final Permanent Injunction, including, but not limited to, the Stipulated Final Judgment, ECF No. [587-1] at 3. 4. Plaintiffs and the TTT Defendants shall each bear their own attorney’s fees and costs. Case No. 20-cv-25318-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on October 25, 2023.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to: Counsel of Record Brian and Holly Wilbur 6511 N. Village Road Parker, CO 80134 TTT Defendants Attn: Brian and Holly Wilbur 6511 N. Village Road Parker, CO 80134 Jordan Salkin Freedom Consumer Services LLC d/b/a Timeshare Freedom Group Booking # 3213378 Theo Lacy Jail 501 The City Dr. S. Orange, CA 92867

Footnotes

1 Defendants Timeshare Termination Team, LLC and Vindaloo Travel Network, LLC (“TTT- 2”) were both named Defendants in the case. However, around the time the matter was filed, Timeshare Termination Team was voluntarily dissolved, and Vindaloo Travel Network changed its name to Timeshare Termination Team, LLC. Circuit has explained that voluntary dismissals should be granted unless a defendant will suffer “clear legal prejudice” besides the possibility of a subsequent lawsuit, meaning that the defendant would “lose [a] substantial right by the dismissal.” Id. (first quoting McCants, 781 F. 2d at 856-57, then quoting Durham v. Florida East Coast Ry. Co., 385 F. 2d 366, 368 (5th Cir. 1967)). In considering a voluntary dismissal under the rule, the district court must “weigh the relevant equities and do justice between the parties in each case, imposing such costs and attaching such conditions to the dismissal as are deemed appropriate.” Id. (quoting McCants, 781 F. 2d at 857). Here, the Court has entered a permanent injunction against the TTT Defendants, ECF No. , and the TTT Defendants and Bluegreen have entered into a Settlement Agreement that has been approved by the Bankruptcy Court, see ECF Nos. [580-2], [580-3]. Under those circumstances, the Court finds the TTT Defendants will not suffer clear legal prejudice through dismissal. Moreover, the Court deems it appropriate to dismiss subject to the parties’ Settlement Agreement, Ex.1, ECF No. [580-2]. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

Durham v. Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co., 385 F.2d 366 (5th Cir. 1967)
Gulf Coast Fans, Inc. v. Midwest Elecs. Importers, Inc., 740 F.2d 1499 (11th Cir. 1984)
Reta L. McCANTS v. Ford Motor Co., Inc., 781 F.2d 855 (11th Cir. 1986)
Pontenberg v. Boston Sci. Corp., 252 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2001)

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw

BLUEGREEN VACATIONS UNLIMITED, INC. v. TIMESHARE TERMINATION TEAM, LLC