Court Opinion

ID: 9372101
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-17 20:00:39.210157+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:32.786788
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 21-13195   Document: 47-1    Date Filed: 02/17/2023   Page: 1 of 5

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                 In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                         ____________________

                              No. 21-13195
                         ____________________

       LINDA HARDNETT,
                                                   Plaintiff-Appellant,
       versus
       EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC,
       a Georgia limited liability company,
       TRANS UNION, LLC,
       an Illinois limited liability company,
       CREDIT COLLECTION SERVICES, INC.,
       a foreign corporation,

                                               Defendants-Appellees,
USCA11 Case: 21-13195    Document: 47-1     Date Filed: 02/17/2023   Page: 2 of 5

       2                     Opinion of the Court               21-13195

       MERRICK BANK CORPORATION,
       a foreign corporation
       d.b.a. Merrick Bank, et al.,

                                                            Defendants.

                           ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Northern District of Georgia
                    D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cv-03017-LMM
                          ____________________

       Before BRANCH, BRASHER, and ED CARNES, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Linda Hardnett sued multiple defendants, alleging
       violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). After the
       district court granted one of the defendant’s motion to dismiss,
       Hardnett appealed to this Court. But we do not reach the merits
       of Hardnett’s appeal today. After a careful review for appellate
       jurisdiction in this case, we conclude that we have none.
       Accordingly, we dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
             Hardnett sued seven defendants for alleged violations of the
       FCRA. Four defendants were dismissed through notices of
       voluntary dismissal before they answered. Another defendant,
       Credit Collection Services, Inc. (“CCS”), moved to dismiss
USCA11 Case: 21-13195      Document: 47-1      Date Filed: 02/17/2023     Page: 3 of 5

       21-13195                Opinion of the Court                         3

       Hardnett’s claims against it under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
       12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The district court granted CCS’s
       motion. The dismissal of CCS, however, still left two defendants
       in the case—Trans Union, LLC and Equifax Information Services,
       LLC.
               Shortly after CCS was dismissed, Hardnett informed the
       district court that she had settled her claims with Trans Union and
       Equifax and that she anticipated filing stipulations of dismissal
       under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). On July 2, 2021,
       Hardnett and Trans Union filed a “Stipulation of Dismissal with
       Prejudice of Trans Union Only,” which was signed by counsel for
       Hardnett, Trans Union, and Equifax. They also provided a draft
       order, and the district court entered an order dismissing Hardnett’s
       claims against Trans Union on July 23, 2021, leaving Equifax as the
       last remaining defendant.
               Hardnett and Equifax then filed a “Stipulation of Dismissal
       with Prejudice” as to Equifax, which was signed by counsel for
       Hardnett and Equifax only. Unlike the Trans Union dismissal, the
       district court did not enter an order dismissing Hardnett’s claims
       against Equifax. After filing the Equifax stipulation of dismissal,
       Hardnett appealed.
              It is well-established that we must raise concerns about our
       jurisdiction at any point in the appellate process and that we are
       ordinarily limited to reviewing only final decisions of district
USCA11 Case: 21-13195         Document: 47-1         Date Filed: 02/17/2023         Page: 4 of 5

       4                          Opinion of the Court                       21-13195

       courts.1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Acheron Capital, Ltd. v. Mukamal,
       22 F.4th 979, 986 (11th Cir. 2022). After this appeal was set for oral
       argument on the merits, we asked the parties to address whether
       the Equifax stipulation was effective given that it was signed only
       by counsel for Hardnett and Equifax. We asked because Rule
       41(a)(1)(A)(ii) permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action by filing “a
       stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared.”
       Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) (emphasis added). While Equifax was
       the sole remaining defendant, other defendants had appeared in
       this case.
              Although we have “h[e]ld that [a] plaintiff is entitled to a
       dismissal against one defendant under Rule 41(a), even though the
       action against another defendant would remain pending,” we have
       not addressed who must sign a stipulation of dismissal. Plains
       Growers, Inc. by Florists’ Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ickes-Braun Glasshouses,
       Inc., 474 F.2d 250, 253 (5th Cir. 1973) (discussing only Rule 41(a)
       notices and motions in a case not involving a stipulation of
       dismissal). 2 The parties do not point us to a published decision
       from another circuit examining this issue in any depth nor has our

       1 Although exceptions to this rule exist, they are not relevant to this appeal.
       2 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc),
       this Court adopted as precedent the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit
       handed down prior to October 1, 1981.
USCA11 Case: 21-13195         Document: 47-1          Date Filed: 02/17/2023          Page: 5 of 5

       21-13195                    Opinion of the Court                                 5

       research revealed one. 3 Nevertheless, in interpreting Rule 41(a)(1),
       we have repeatedly said that the Rule “means precisely what it
       says.” Pilot Freight Carriers, Inc. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 506
       F.2d 914, 916 (5th Cir. 1975); Est. of W. v. Smith, 9 F.4th 1361,
       1367–68 (11th Cir. 2021). And Hardnett and CCS both concede that
       the Equifax stipulation was not signed by all parties who have
       appeared in this case and was therefore not a valid stipulation of
       dismissal.
               Because the district court did not order dismissal under Rule
       41(a)(2), the claims against Equifax remain pending. Without a
       final resolution of all of the claims of all the parties, there is not a
       final judgment. 4 See Supreme Fuels Trading FZE v. Sargeant, 689
       F.3d 1244, 1245–46 (11th Cir. 2012).
              Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of
       jurisdiction.

       3 We acknowledge that the Fifth Circuit noted in 2018 that “only the dismissed
       defendant need sign the stipulation.” Nat’l City Golf Fin. v. Scott, 899 F.3d
       412, 415 n.3 (5th Cir. 2018) (citing Plains Growers, 474 F.2d at 253). But the
       Fifth Circuit provided no reasoning for its conclusion and the only case it cited
       (Plains Growers, 474 F.2d at 253) did not address stipulations of dismissal
       under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii).
       4 Indeed, both Hardnett and CCS concede that, in light of Equifax’s ineffective
       dismissal stipulation, “the district court’s judgment that is the subject of [this]
       appeal was not final and appealable.”