Davis v. Perdue, et al. (JOINT ASSIGN)

Filing 16

ORDER directing that the Joint Motion for Entry of a Consent Decree (Doc. # 13 ) is DENIED for lack of jurisdiction, and the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 01/12/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist)(scn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
AARON DAVIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
PATRICK G. PERDUE and
RODERICK B. PERDUE,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 2:14-CV-1099-WKW
)
[WO]
)
)
)
)
ORDER

On December 11, 2014, the parties filed a Notice of Settlement (Doc. # 11),
a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal (Doc. # 12), and a Joint Motion for Entry of a
Consent Decree (Doc. # 13). The Joint Stipulation of Dismissal signed by both
parties was properly filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(a)(1)(A)(ii) at 3:11 p.m.

Upon its filing, this court no longer retained

jurisdiction over the instant action. See Anago Franchising, Inc. v. Shaz, LLC, 677
F.3d 1272 (11th Cir. 2012) (“We find that the plain language of Rule
41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires that a stipulation filed pursuant to that subsection is selfexecuting and dismisses the case upon its becoming effective. The stipulation
becomes effective upon filing unless it explicitly conditions its effectiveness on a
subsequent occurrence. District courts need not and may not take action after the

stipulation becomes effective because the stipulation dismisses the case and divests
the district court of jurisdiction.”).
Further, because the Joint Stipulation of Dismissal did not condition its
effectiveness upon any subsequent action, the parties’ Joint Motion for Entry of a
Consent Decree (Doc. # 13) must be denied as it was filed at 3:40 p.m.,
approximately 29 minutes after the parties effectively dismissed the case. See id.
at 1280 (“We therefore find that for a district court to retain jurisdiction over a
settlement agreement where the parties dismiss the case by filing a stipulation of
dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), either (1) the district court must issue
the order retaining jurisdiction under Kokkonen prior to the filing of the stipulation,
or (2) the parties must condition the effectiveness of the stipulation on the district
court's entry of an order retaining jurisdiction.”) (addressing the requirements of
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994)).
Accordingly, the Joint Motion for Entry of a Consent Decree (Doc. # 13) is
DENIED for lack of jurisdiction, and the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close
this case.
DONE this 12th day of January, 2015.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2