Jane Doe 1 et al v. Varsity Brands, LLC et al
Filing
178
ORDER. Plaintiffs' 175 Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The case is DISMISSED without prejudice. The court retains jurisdiction over this action to allow Defendants to file a motion for attorney fees and other costs. Otherwise, the Motion is DENIED. Defendants are DIRECTED to file a motion for attorney fees and costs, outlining the fees and costs they have incurred defending this litigation, on or before Friday, November 1, 2024. The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate all deadlines. Signed by Judge Julie S. Sneed on 10/23/2024. (JWM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
JANE DOE 1, JANE DOE 2, and JANE
DOE 3,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Case No: 6:23-cv-788-JSS-LHP
VARSITY BRANDS, LLC, VARSITY
SPIRIT, LLC, VARSITY BRANDS
HOLDING COMPANY, INC., U.S.
ALL STAR FEDERATION, INC.,
JEFF WEBB, CHAMPION ELITE
LEGACY, ASHLEY HUGHES, and
ERICK KRISTIANSON,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER
On August 30, 2024, Plaintiffs moved to voluntarily dismiss their claims
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), with each party to bear its own
costs and attorney fees. (Motion, Dkt. 175.) Defendants filed a response on September
20, 2024. (Response, Dkt. 177.) In their Response, Defendants state that they “do not
oppose dismissal,” only that they “oppose dismissal without the [c]ourt conditioning
said dismissal on payment of all of Defendants’ attorney[] fees and costs, as a matter
of equity and fairness.” (Id. at 2.) As such, Defendants “request entry of an order of
voluntary dismissal conditioned on the payment of all of Defendants’ expenses,
including all attorney[] fees and costs.” (Id. at 15.)
“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). “In exercising its broad equitable discretion under Rule
41(a)(2), 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. (internal quotation marks omitted). “A plaintiff
ordinarily will not be permitted to dismiss an action without prejudice under Rule
41(a)(2) after the defendant has been put to considerable expense in preparing for trial,
except on condition that the plaintiff reimburse the defendant for at least a portion of
his expenses of litigation.” McCants v. Ford Motor Co., Inc., 781 F.2d 855, 860 (11th
Cir. 1986). “A district court loses all power over determinations of the merits of a case
when it is voluntarily dismissed.” Anago Franchising, Inc. v. Shaz, LLC, 677 F.3d 1272,
1279 (11th Cir. 2012). “The district court does retain jurisdiction, however, to consider
a limited set of issues after the action is voluntarily dismissed.” Absolute Activist Value
Master Fund Ltd. v. Devine, 998 F.3d 1258, 1265 (11th Cir. 2021). These “collateral
issues”—“independent proceeding[s] supplemental to the original proceeding and not
request[s] for a modification of the original decree”—include both “the imposition of
costs” and “attorney[] fees.” Id. (quoting Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384,
395–96 (1990)). “As such, there is no clear error in [a district c]ourt maintaining
jurisdiction over the collateral issue of attorney[] fees” after approving the voluntary
dismissal of an action under Rule 41(a)(2). Russ v. LVNV Funding LLC, No. 1:21-cv04669-WMR-JCF, 2022 WL 18780936 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 15, 2022); see Nat’l Billing Inst.,
-2-
LLC v. Heavensent Nat. Med. & Pain Mgmt. Servs., Inc., No. 14-80897-CivRosenberg/Brannon, 2015 WL 13776790, at *1 (S.D. Fla. July 15, 2015) (“Pursuant
to Rule 41(a)(2), the [c]ourt may exercise its discretion by explicitly attaching
attorney[] fees as a condition of an order of dismissal, or as in the instant case, retain
jurisdiction over a defendant to consider its attorney[] fees and costs.”), report and
recommendation adopted by 2015 WL 13776791 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 14, 2015).
Accordingly:
1.
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice (Dkt. 175) is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
a.
The case is DISMISSED without prejudice. The court retains
jurisdiction over this action to allow Defendants to file a motion
for attorney fees and other costs.
b.
2.
Otherwise, the Motion is DENIED.
Defendants are DIRECTED to file a motion for attorney fees and costs,
outlining the fees and costs they have incurred defending this litigation,
on or before Friday, November 1, 2024.
3.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate all deadlines.
ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on October 23, 2024.
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
-3-
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?