Beerman v. Support Dogs, Inc. et al

Filing 20

ORDER re 19 Notice (Other) filed by Thomas Beerman. Plaintiff Thomas Beerman's Notice of Withdrawal of Loss of Consortium Claim 19 is DENIED without prejudice to filing a motion for leave to amend.Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 7/18/2017. (LMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
JUDY BEERMAN and THOMAS
BEERMAN, Wife
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No: 2:17-cv-326-FtM-99CM

SUPPORT DOGS, INC.,
Defendant/Third Party
Plaintiff
SUSAN BLUEHS,
Third Party Defendant.
___________________________

/
ORDER1

This matter comes before the Court on review of Plaintiff Thomas Beerman’s
Notice of Withdrawal of Loss of Consortium Claim (Doc. 19) filed on July 18, 2017.
Plaintiff Thomas Beerman seeks to dismiss Count II of the First Amended Complaint
(Doc. 2). There is no indication whether Defendant objects.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A), a plaintiff may dismiss an action
without a court order “before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for
summary judgment” or by “a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have

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.

appeared.” In the Eleventh Circuit, “precedent dictates that Rule 41 allows a plaintiff to
dismiss all of his claims against a particular defendant; its text does not permit plaintiffs
to pick and choose, dismissing only particular claims within an action.” Campbell v. Altec
Indus., Inc., 605 F.3d 839, 841 n.1 (11th Cir. 2010). As plaintiff is only seeking to dismiss
Count II, the voluntary dismissal will be denied. The Notice will not be construed as a
motion to amend.

If Plaintiffs wish to amend and exclude Count II they should file a

motion to amend in compliance with the Local Rules.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
Plaintiff Thomas Beerman’s Notice of Withdrawal of Loss of Consortium Claim
(Doc. 19) is DENIED without prejudice to filing a motion for leave to amend.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 18th day of July, 2017.

Copies: All Parties of Record

2