Case 9:10-cv-80062-KAM Document 45 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/21/2010 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

IN AND FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

SOUTH FLORIDA TEA PARTY, INC.,

A Florida non-profit corporation, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. CASE NO.: 10-80062-CV-MARRA/JOHNSON

TEA PARTY, et al.

Defendants.
_________________________________/

PLAINTIFF NAVARRE PATRIOTS’

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE1

Plaintiff, NAVARRE PATRIOTS, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) or alternatively

pursuant to 42(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby gives notice of its voluntary

dismissal of all claims asserted by it, without prejudice, in the above-entitled matter.

Specifically, Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) sets out that a Plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss its

claims without prejudice and without a Court Order by notice at any time prior to the Defendants

filing an Answer or moving for summary judgment. As of the filing of this Notice, no Defendant

has filed an Answer in this action. Further, while the Defendants have moved for summary

judgment, the Court denied the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment without prejudice

essentially ruling that the same was prematurely filed. (D.E. 32). In light thereof, Plaintiff

asserts that voluntary dismissal by notice alone should be appropriate under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i).

Alternatively, Plaintiff requests voluntary dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Rule

42(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 42(a)(2) permits voluntary dismissal

without prejudice “by court order, on terms that the court considers proper.” Voluntary dismissal

1
In an effort to minimize the number of parties and to streamline litigation, and because its principal organizer
Debbie Gunnoe will remain a Plaintiff, Navarre Patriots wishes to withdraw its claims.

1
Case 9:10-cv-80062-KAM Document 45 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/21/2010 Page 2 of 5

without prejudice pursuant to Rule 42(a)(2) “should be granted unless a defendant would suffer

clear legal prejudice, other than the prospect of a subsequent lawsuit as a result.” See U.S. v.

Maloney, 2007 WL 1424228, *2 (S.Dist.Fla. 2007)(Marra, J.)(quoting Ponteberg v. Boston

Scientific Corp., 252 F.3d 1253, 1255 (11th Cir. 2001)).

Granting the Plaintiff’s request for voluntary dismissal will not cause any prejudice to the

Defendants. Therefore, voluntary dismissal without prejudice is justified in this action.

Dated: June 21, 2010

Respectfully Submitted,

By: /s/ FRANK HERRERA

Frank Herrera
Florida Bar No. 494801
Email: fherrera@qpwblaw.com
Gustavo Sardiña
Florida Bar No. 31162
Email: gsardina@qpwblaw.com
QUINTAIROS, PRIETO, WOOD & BOYER, P.A.
9300 S. Dadeland Blvd.
Fourth Floor
Miami, Florida 33156
Telephone: 305-670-1101
Facsimile: 305-670-1161
And
Timothy Lucero, Esq.
LUCERO LAW GROUP
10693 Wiles Road, Suite 159
Coral Springs, Florida 33076
Tel.: (954) 592-5277
Email: attorneytimothylucero@yahoo.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

2
Case 9:10-cv-80062-KAM Document 45 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/21/2010 Page 3 of 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy hereof is being filed via the Court’s CM/ECF online
filing system, and that the same is being served on the Defendants, namely:

The Tea Party and

Frederic B. O’Neal, Esq.
P.O. Box 842
Windermere, Florida 34786

Nicholas Egoroff
5402 Andover Drive
Orlando, Florida 32812

Douglas Guetzloe
P.O. Box 531101
Orlando, Florida 32853

via U.S. Mail this 21st day of June, 2010.

By: _s/GUSTAVO SARDIÑA___

Gustavo Sardiña

3
Case 9:10-cv-80062-KAM Document 45 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/21/2010 Page 4 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

IN AND FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

SOUTH FLORIDA TEA PARTY, INC.,

A Florida non-profit corporation, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. CASE NO.: 10-80062-CV-MARRA/JOHNSON

TEA PARTY, et al.

Defendants.
_________________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Plaintiff NAVARRE PATRIOTS’ Notice of

Voluntary Dismissal, filed on June 21, 2010 [D.E. __]. Upon review of this motion, and for good

cause shown, the Court states as follows:

Plaintiff notes that he may, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), voluntarily dismiss his claims

prior to the Defendants having Answered or moved for summary judgment, that the Defendants

have not Answered, and that the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment was denied as

prematurely filed. Thus, it is the Plaintiff’s position that he may voluntarily dismiss his claims

by notice alone.

Alternatively, Plaintiff asks that the Court allow him to voluntarily dismiss his claims

without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) as the Defendants will suffer no prejudice.

Regardless of whether dismissal would be under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) or Rule 41(a)(2), the

result would be the same. The Court agrees that the Defendants will not be prejudiced by

voluntary dismissal, and grants the relief sought in Plaintiff’s Notice.

4
Case 9:10-cv-80062-KAM Document 45 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/21/2010 Page 5 of 5

ORDERED that Plaintiff Navarre Patriots’ claims in this action are dismissed without

prejudice.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, this __ day of _____, 2010.

____________________________
United States District Judge