USCA11 Case: 22-12917 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 04/19/2024 Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-12917 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

EUROBOOR BV, et al., Plaintiffs-Counter Defendants, ALBERT KOSTER, EUROBOOR FZC, Plaintiffs-Counter Defendants Appellants, versus ELENA GRAFOVA,

Defendant-Counter Claimant Appellee. USCA11 Case: 22-12917 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 04/19/2024 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 22-12917

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama D.C. Docket No. 2:17-cv-02157-KOB ____________________

Before WILSON, GRANT, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Albert Koster and Euroboor FZC appeal from the district court’s amended final judgment in favor of the defendant. How- ever, the appeal is not final because all of the claims were not re- solved in the district court. Rule 41(a) permits a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss an “ac- tion” by filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Here, the Rule 41(a) stipulation was ineffective because it did not dismiss the entire ac- tion. See Perry v. Schumacher Grp. of La., 891 F.3d 954, 958 (11th Cir. 2018). It did not dismiss all claims or all counterclaims, and coun- terclaim count 4 remained pending. See id. (noting that a plaintiff cannot stipulate to dismissal of a portion of his lawsuit while leav- ing a different part of the lawsuit pending before the trial court). While Rule 41(a) also permits a plaintiff (or counter-plaintiff) to dis- miss all of his claims against a particular defendant (or counter-de- fendant), the stipulation did not do that either. See Rosell v. VMSB, LLC, 67 F.4th 1141, 1144 n.2 (11th Cir. 2023); Klay v. United Healthgroup, Inc., 376 F.3d 1092, 1106 (11th Cir. 2004). It purported USCA11 Case: 22-12917 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 04/19/2024 Page: 3 of 3

22-12917 Opinion of the Court 3

to dismiss only some of the plaintiffs’ claims against Grafova and only some of Grafova’s counterclaims against two plaintiffs. See Klay, 376 F.3d at 1106 (noting that Rule 41 does not permit plaintiffs to pick and choose, dismissing only particular claims within an ac- tion); Rosell, 67 F.4th at 1143-44 (holding that there was no final decision in the action because the parties’ attempt to dismiss a sin- gle count under Rule 41(a) was ineffective). Therefore, the stipu- lation was invalid, and the district court could not cure that failure by entering an order under Rule 41(a)(2) that similarly purported to dismiss fewer than all the claims against one or more parties. See Rosell, 67 F.4th at 1144 & n.2; Sanchez, 84 F.4th at 1292-93. Accordingly, there is not a final judgment, and this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. All pending motions are de- nied as MOOT.