Arzola et al v. Rimax Contractors, Inc.

Filing 39

ORDER granting 32 Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Dismissal. This case is DISMISSED as to Plaintiff Oscar Veliz only. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 11/23/2016. (LMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
JESUS ARZOLA, MAYNOR
MARTINEZ, BILANDER LOPEZ, ALAN
VELASQUES, ALEXANDER
HERNANDEZ, JELEN MERLO,
WALTER JIMENEZ, ERMAN
CANTILLANO, JOE PINEDA, ELIAS
MEJIA, TANIA MERLO, ESTEBAN
DIAZ, JONATAN RIVERA, ALEXIS
AMADOR, BERNADINO CASTRO,
VICTOR COCTECON, DARLIN
VELASQUEZ, MELCHOR ACEVEDO,
JOSE CALIX, OSCAR VELIZ, RENE
ARRIAZA and LARA EVELIO,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No: 2:16-cv-718-FtM-99MRM

RIMAX CONTRACTORS, INC.,
Defendant.
/
ORDER1
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Oscar Veliz's Motion for Partial
Dismissal (Doc. #32) filed on November 4, 2016. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2),
Plaintiff Veliz moves to dismiss his claims without prejudice in the instant action against
Defendant. (Doc. #32). Taking the instant Motion under advisement, the Court issued an
Order requiring Plaintiff to file a Notice explaining the circumstances surrounding the

1

Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or websites. These
hyperlinks are provided only for users’ convenience. Users are cautioned that hyperlinked documents in
CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other websites, this Court does not endorse,
recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their
websites. Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their websites. The
Court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a
hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the Court.

proposed dismissal of his claims. (Doc. #36). In compliance with the Court’s Order,
Plaintiff filed such Notice on November 18, 2016. (Doc. #37). The Court will now turn to
the matter at hand.
Under Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, "an action may be
dismissed at the plaintiff's request only by court order, on terms that the court considers
proper." A district court is afforded “broad discretion in determining whether to allow a
voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2).” Pontenberg v. Boston Scientific Corp., 252 F.3d
1253, 1255 (11th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). Typically, “a voluntary dismissal should be
granted unless the defendant will suffer clear legal prejudice, other than the mere
prospect of a subsequent lawsuit, as a result.” McCants v. Ford Motor Co., Inc., 781 F.2d
855, 856-57 (11th Cir. 1986).
Here, the Court finds no evidence of prejudice against Defendant. Plaintiff Veliz
represents that Defendant does not oppose his dismissal from the instant action. (Doc.
#32 at 1). Due to an administrative error, Plaintiff Veliz explains he was mistakenly
included as a party in the First Amended Complaint. (Doc. #37 at 1). Furthermore, Plaintiff
has already settled his claims against Defendant in the previous action styled, Veliz et al
v. Rimax Contractors, Inc. et al, Civ. No. 15-6339 (E.D. La. Nov. 27, 2016). For the
reasons stated above, the Court finds good cause to dismiss Plaintiff Veliz and his claims
from the instant action.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Dismissal (Doc. #32) is GRANTED. This case is
DISMISSED as to Plaintiff Oscar Veliz only.

2

DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 23rd day of November, 2016.

Copies: All Parties of Record

3