Court Opinion

ID: 9912902
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-26 15:00:43.418611+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:06:24.302325
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-12046    Document: 21-1     Date Filed: 12/26/2023   Page: 1 of 2

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-12046
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       SHANNON SIMMONS,
       ERANUS ROBERSON,
                                                   Plaintiﬀs-Appellants,
       versus
       FUTO'S, INC.,
       NOMAN RASHID,

                                                 Defendants-Appellees.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Northern District of Georgia
USCA11 Case: 23-12046      Document: 21-1       Date Filed: 12/26/2023     Page: 2 of 2

       2                       Opinion of the Court                  23-12046

                      D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cv-03591-TWT
                           ____________________

       Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Upon our review of the record and the parties’ responses to
       the jurisdictional questions, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of
       jurisdiction. The August 10, 2022 joint stipulation of voluntary dis-
       missal was ineffective to dismiss Appellants’ claims against Steve
       and Charles Futo because it was not signed by all parties that had
       appeared in the litigation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii); City of
       Jacksonville v. Jacksonville Hosp. Holdings, L.P., 82 F.4th 1031, 1038
       (11th Cir. 2023). The stipulation was signed only by counsel for the
       respective parties to the dismissal, and was not signed by counsel
       for Appellees. Accordingly, the purportedly-dismissed claims re-
       main pending before the district court, and we thus lack jurisdic-
       tion to consider this appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Supreme Fuels
       Trading FZE v. Sargeant, 689 F.3d 1244, 1246 (11th Cir. 2012).