USCA11 Case: 23-13380    Document: 18-1    Date Filed: 08/08/2024   Page: 1 of 5




                                                 [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                               No. 23-13380
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       AIN JEEM, INC.,
                                 Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellee,
       versus
       THE INDIVIDUALS, PARTNERSHIPS, AND
       UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS
       IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE A, et al.,


                                                           Defendants,


       HALL OF FAME SPORTS MEMORABILIA, INC., et al.,
USCA11 Case: 23-13380    Document: 18-1    Date Filed: 08/08/2024    Page: 2 of 5




       2                    Opinion of the Court                23-13380

                                       Defendants-Counter Claimaints,


       AKERMAN LLP ALEJANDRO J. FERNANDEZ, et al.,


                                                   Counter Defendants,


       CARL ELLEN PUCKETT, JR.,


                                          Defendant-Counter Claimaint
                                            Cross Claimaint-Appellant,


       MARCELLA ANDERSON PUCKETT,


                                             Cross Claimant-Appellant.


                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 8:21-cv-01331-VMC-AEP
                          ____________________

       Before JILL PRYOR, BRASHER, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
USCA11 Case: 23-13380      Document: 18-1     Date Filed: 08/08/2024     Page: 3 of 5




       23-13380               Opinion of the Court                         3

              Carl and Marcella Puckett, proceeding pro se, appeal from
       the district court’s September 21, 2023 order dismissing the case.
       However, this is not a final and appealable order because some
       claims remain pending in the district court. See 

;
       Supreme Fuels Trading FZE v. Sargeant, 

, 1245‑46 (11th
       Cir. 2012).
              Ain Jeem, Inc.’s complaint initiating this action listed 77 de-
       fendants, and 75 of those defendants were voluntarily dismissed
       pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Defend-
       ant Hall of Fame Sports Memorabilia, Inc. (“HFSM”) filed a coun-
       terclaim against Ain Jeem asserting three separate counts. On
       March 2, 2022, the district entered summary judgment in HFSM’s
       favor on Counts I and II, leaving Count III pending.
               Ain Jeem filed a Rule 41(a)(2) motion to voluntarily dismiss
       its claims against Carl Puckett, stating that a dismissal would not
       prejudice Puckett. On July 6, 2022, the district court entered a pa-
       perless order granting Ain Jeem’s motion. It cited Rule 41(a)(2) and
       found that Puckett would not be prejudiced by the dismissal be-
       cause it “removes the risk of him being held liable to Ain Jeem” and
       “little discovery ha[d] taken place.”
              On September 17, 2023, Ain Jeem and HFSM filed a Rule
       41(a)(1)(A)(ii) joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice of all
       claims and counterclaims in the action, stating that Ain Jeem and
       the defendants “shall each bear their own costs and attorneys’
       fees.” However, this stipulation was ineffective to dismiss the re-
       maining claims because it was signed only by Ain Jeem and HFSM,
USCA11 Case: 23-13380       Document: 18-1       Date Filed: 08/08/2024      Page: 4 of 5




       4                       Opinion of the Court                    23-13380

       and not by “all parties who have appeared” as required by Rule
       41(a)(1)(A)(ii). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii); City of Jacksonville
       v. Jacksonville Hosp. Holdings, L.P., 

 (11th Cir.
       2023). Other parties who have appeared in the action include Cas-
       sandra Tisdol, Phillip Rangell II, Spencer Kaminski, Jesus Diaz, Wil-
       liam Belknap, and the Pucketts.
              On September 21, 2023, the district court entered a paperless
       order stating that, “[p]ursuant to the Stipulation of Dismissal with
       Prejudice . . . , th[e] case [wa]s dismissed with prejudice and with
       each party bearing their own attorney’s fees and costs.” It directed
       the clerk to close the case.
              Although a district court may construe a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)
       stipulation of voluntary dismissal as a Rule 41(a)(2) motion to vol-
       untarily dismiss, this order did not do so. See Sanchez v. Disc. Rock
       & Sand, Inc., 

, 1292 (11th Cir. 2023). Rule 41(a)(2)
       allows a district court to enter an order dismissing the action “at
       the plaintiff’s request” and “on terms that the court considers
       proper.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). But unlike the July 6, 2022 order
       granting Ain Jeem’s motion to voluntarily dismiss Carl Puckett, the
       September 21, 2023 order did not cite Rule 41(a)(2), did not analyze
       whether the terms of the dismissal were proper, and simply dis-
       missed the case “pursuant to” the stipulation without making any
       findings or judgments. See Sanchez, 84 F.4th at 1292 (holding that
       the district court’s Rule 41(a)(2) order “adjudging” that the defend-
       ant was dismissed was effective because it set forth the terms of the
       dismissal and considered whether the terms were proper).
USCA11 Case: 23-13380      Document: 18-1     Date Filed: 08/08/2024     Page: 5 of 5




       23-13380               Opinion of the Court                         5

              Accordingly, Ain Jeem’s claims against HFSM and Count III
       of HFSM’s counterclaim are still pending, and thus, we lack juris-
       diction to hear this appeal. See 

; Supreme Fuels Trad-
       ing FZE, 689 F.3d at 1245‑46. This appeal is DISMISSED for lack of
       jurisdiction, and all pending motions are DENIED as moot.