Court Opinion

ID: 9942288
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-20 19:01:35.011798+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:54.801856
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-12657   Document: 26-1     Date Filed: 02/20/2024   Page: 1 of 3

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                         ____________________

                              No. 23-12657
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICAN CORPORATION,
       a foreign corporation,
                                         Plaintiﬀ-Third Party Defendant
                                          Counter Defendant-Appellant,
       versus
       NORTH AMERICAN AUTOMOTIVE SERVICES, INC.,
       an Illinois Corporation, et al.,

                                                           Defendants,

       EFN WEST PALM MOTOR SALES, LLC,
       an Illinois Limited Liability Company,
       GENE KHAYTIN,
USCA11 Case: 23-12657     Document: 26-1      Date Filed: 02/20/2024    Page: 2 of 3

       2                      Opinion of the Court                23-12657

       ERNIE REVUELTA,
       EDWARD W. NAPLETON,
       GEOVANNY PELAYO,
       individuals, et al.,

                                          Defendants-Counter Claimants
                                          Third Party Plaintiﬀs-Appellees,

       HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY,

                              Third Party Defendant-Counter Defendant.

                            ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Florida
                     D.C. Docket No. 9:20-cv-82102-WM
                           ____________________

       Before WILSON, JORDAN, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Upon our review of the record and the parties’ response to
       the jurisdictional question, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of ju-
       risdiction.
             EFN West Palm Motor Sales, LLC’s stipulations of volun-
       tary dismissal of its fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth
USCA11 Case: 23-12657      Document: 26-1      Date Filed: 02/20/2024     Page: 3 of 3

       23-12657               Opinion of the Court                          3

       counterclaims against Hyundai Motor American Corporation, pur-
       suant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), were inva-
       lid because that Rule generally does not permit dismissal of only
       particular claims or counterclaims within an action. See Fed. R.
       Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), 41(c); Rosell v. VMSB, LLC, 67 F.4th 1141,
       1144 (11th Cir. 2023); Esteva v. UBS Fin. Servs. Inc. (In re Esteva),
       60 F.4th 664, 675 (11th Cir. 2023); Klay v. United Healthgroup, Inc.,
       376 F.3d 1092, 1106 (11th Cir. 2004). The district court’s subse-
       quent orders adjudging those counterclaims dismissed pursuant to
       the stipulations were also ineffective to dismiss the counterclaims
       under Rule 41(a)(2). See Rosell, 67 F.4th at 1144.
              We decline to construe the stipulations as seeking amend-
       ment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 or as abandonment of the counter-
       claims. The filings were labeled as stipulations of dismissal and ex-
       pressly invoked Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), and the district court’s orders
       recognizing them explicitly accepted them as stipulations and con-
       templated dismissal under Rule 41. And unlike Hyundai’s explicit
       withdrawal, at trial, of one of its claims and the district court’s ex-
       press recognition that the claim was abandoned, the parties have
       not pointed to anything in the record mentioning withdrawal or
       abandonment, at any time, of any counterclaim.
              Accordingly, the counterclaims have not been resolved and
       remain pending before the district court, so we lack jurisdiction
       over this appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Supreme Fuels Trading FZE v.
       Sargeant, 689 F.3d 1244, 1246 (11th Cir. 2012).