David Bear v. Douglas Underhill, No. 24-10474 (11th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
USCA11 Case: 24-10474 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 04/22/2024 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-10474 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ DAVID BEAR, Plainti -Appellee, versus DOUGLAS B. UNDERHILL, Defendant-Appellant, ESCAMBIA COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, et al., Defendant. USCA11 Case: 24-10474 2 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 04/22/2024 Opinion of the Court Page: 2 of 3 24-10474 ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 3:19-cv-04424-MCR-HTC ____________________ Before JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Upon review of the record and the parties’ responses to the jurisdictional question, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. The parties’ July 12, 2022 stipulation of dismissal of Count V of the amended complaint was invalid under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) because that Rule permits dismissal only of “an entire action,” and not particular claims. See Rosell v. VMSB, LLC, 67 F.4th 1141, 1144 (11th Cir. 2023). The district court’s March 25, 2023 ruling that Count V was moot, pursuant to the defective July 12, 2022 stipulation, was thus also ineffective to resolve Count V. See id. Although we have recognized that a plaintiff may dismiss all claims against a particular defendant under Rule 41(a), see id., the stipulation did not resolve all claims asserted against either Douglas Underhill or the Escambia County Board of County Commissioners. Further, we decline to construe the stipulation as an attempt to abandon Count V, as the stipulation expressly invoked Rule USCA11 Case: 24-10474 24-10474 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 04/22/2024 Opinion of the Court Page: 3 of 3 3 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and was not styled in any way as an abandonment of Count V. Accordingly, Count V has not been resolved and remains pending before the district court. We thus lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Supreme Fuels Trading FZE v. Sargeant, 689 F.3d 1244, 1246 (11th Cir. 2012).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
