# King v. The School Board of Charlotte County, Florida

> District Court, M.D. Florida · September 8, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10110866

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Florida
- **Decided:** September 8, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10110866

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that Rule 68’s cost-shifting provisions trump the FLSA’s cost- shifting provisions

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION

STEVEN KING, an individual,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 2:22-cv-277-KCD

THE SCHOOL BOARD OF
CHARLOTTE COUNTY,
FLORIDA,

Defendant.
/
ORDER1
In this Fair Labor Standards Act case, the parties have filed a Joint
Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice. (Doc. 39.) Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action voluntarily if a
stipulation of dismissal is signed by all parties who have appeared. The
dismissal is effective upon filing and requires no further action by the Court.
See Anago Franchising, Inc. v. Shaz, LLC, 677 F.3d 1272, 1278 (11th Cir.
2012).2 The text of the FLSA does not provide, and no Eleventh Circuit decision

1 Disclaimer: Documents hyperlinked to CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By using
hyperlinks, the Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties
or the services or products they provide, nor does it have any agreements with them. The
Court is also not responsible for a hyperlink’s availability and functionality, and a failed
hyperlink does not affect this Order.
2 Unless otherwise indicated, all internal quotation marks, citations, and alterations have
been omitted in this and later citations.
has ever held, that FLSA claims are exempt from Rule 41. To the contrary, the
Eleventh Circuit has reasoned that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply

“in actions brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act no less than in any
other case.” Vasconcelo v. Miami Auto Max, Inc., 981 F.3d 934, 942 (11th Cir.
2020) (holding that Rule 68’s cost-shifting provisions trump the FLSA’s cost-
shifting provisions). And there is “no distinction” between the operation of Rule

41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and Rule 68 in an FLSA action. See Casso-Lopez v. Beach Time
Rental Suncoast, LLC, 335 F.R.D. 458, 461-462 (M.D. Fla. 2020) (holding
parties may terminate an FLSA case by filing either a Rule 41 stipulation or a
Rule 68(a) notice of acceptance of an offer of judgment “and the district court

is immediately powerless to interfere”); see also Dicomo v. KJIMS Dev. Co.,
Inc., No. 2:16-cv-327-FtM-99CM, 2016 WL 6678420, *1 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 14,
2016) (“[T]he parties may dismiss [an FLSA] case in its entirety pursuant to
the Joint Stipulation for Dismissal With Prejudice without further action from

the Court as it is unconditional and self-executing.”).
Accordingly, this action is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk is directed
to enter judgment, deny all pending motions, terminate all scheduled events,
and close the case.
ENTERED in Fort Myers, Florida this September 8, 2022.

Lek iar
Kgffe C. Dudek
United States Magistrate Judge

Copies: All Parties of Record

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10110866. Public record. Not legal advice.