Dan-Bunkering (America) Inc. v. M/V GLOBAL ORION, her engines, tackle, apparel, etc. et al
ORDER re: 37 Stipulation of Dismissal-With Prejudice-Release of Vessel from Arrest/Attachment filed by Suppleo Bunkering S. de R.L. de C.V., Navarro Capital Partners, LLC, Dan-Bunkering (America) Inc. The stipulation is construed as a motion to dismiss as set out. The 37 motion to dismiss is GRANTED, & all of Plfs's claims against Dfts Navarro & the Vessel are DISMISSED w/prejudice, w/each party to bear their own costs. The previously issued arrest warrants are CANCELLED, & the Clerk is DIRECTED to close this case. Signed by District Judge Terry F. Moorer on 10/16/2020. (copy to USMS on 10/16/2020) (tot)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
DAN-BUNKERING (AMERICAN) INC., :
M/V GLOBAL ORION, her engines, tackle, :
apparel, etc., in rem, et al.
CIVIL ACT. NO. 1:20-cv-364-TFM-C
Pending before the Court is the Stipulation of Dismissal-With Prejudice-Release of Vessel
From Arrest/Attachment that is brought by Plaintiffs Dan-Bunkering (America) Inc. (“DanBunkering”) and Suppleo Bunkering S. de R.L. de C.V. (“Suppleo”), and Defendant Navarro
Capital Partners, LLC (“Navarro”), for itself and as owner of and claimant to the M/V GLOBAL
ORION (“the Vessel”). Doc. 37, filed October 15, 2020. The stipulation of dismissal is signed
by the remaining parties in this matter and is brought pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41. Id. The Court
construes the stipulation of dismissal as a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs Dan-Bunkering’s and
Suppleo’s claims against Defendants Navarro and the Vessel, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2).1
A request to dismiss an action requires a court order and dismissal by terms the court considers
“proper” if Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1) does not apply. FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(2). Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(a)(1)(A) allows for dismissal without a court order: (i) before the opposing party serves either
an answer or a motion for summary judgment; or (ii) if the joint stipulation of dismissal is signed
by all of the parties who have appeared. This matter involves multiple parties, and the stipulation
of dismissal is not signed by all of the parties who have appeared. Thus, the Court finds it proper
to construe the moving parties’ stipulation of dismissal as a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs DanBunkering’s and Suppleo’s claims against Defendants Navarro and the Vessel, pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 41(a)(2). See Plain Growers, Inc. ex rel. Florists’ Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ickes-Braun
Glasshouses, Inc., 474 F.2d 250, 254 (5th Cir. 1973) (“There is little merit in the argument that
Page 1 of 2
Upon consideration of the motion to dismiss (Doc. 37), it is ORDERED it is GRANTED,
and all of Plaintiffs Dan-Bunkering’s and Suppleo’s claims against Defendants Navarro and the
Vessel are DISMISSED with prejudice, with each party to bear their own costs. The previously
issued arrest warrants are hereby CANCELLED, and the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to
close this case.
DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of October 2020.
/s/ Terry F. Moorer
TERRY F. MOORER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the court could not dismiss the action as to less than all defendants upon motion [under (a)(2)]
. . . .”); Bonner v. City of Prichard, Ala., 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc).
Page 2 of 2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?