USCA11 Case: 25-10967 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 11/12/2025 Page: 1 of 4

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-10967 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

TRANSAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus

PARTNERSHIP MANAGEMENT SERVICES GROUP, LLC, a.k.a. PMSG, LLC, LAWRENCE E. WHITE, Defendants-Appellants. ____________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 6:23-cv-00452-ACC-DCI ____________________

Before JILL PRYOR, GRANT, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: USCA11 Case: 25-10967 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 11/12/2025 Page: 2 of 4

2 Opinion of the Court 25-10967

Lawrence E. White and Partnership Management Services Group, LLC (“PMSG”) appeal from the district court’s February 25, 2025, order and judgment in favor of Transamerica Life Insurance Company (“Transamerica”). We asked the parties to address whether the appeal is taken from a final decision, which is essential for appellate jurisdiction. We also asked whether the relevant pleadings sufficiently alleged the citizenship of PMSG, so as to in- voke the district court’s diversity jurisdiction. The parties respond that the appeal is taken from a final decision and that the relevant pleadings and record evidence sufficiently established PMSG’s citi- zenship. We conclude that the appeal is not taken from a final de- cision, so we lack appellate jurisdiction and do not address the po- tential issue regarding the district court’s jurisdiction. In its operative complaint, Transamerica asserted four claims for relief, including one for breach of contracts (“Count II”), all against both White and PMSG (together, the “defendants”). The defendants filed an answer. The parties later filed motions for summary judgment. On October 8, 2024, the district court entered an order on those motions, in which it left Count II pending. On October 18, 2024, Transamerica filed a notice of voluntary dismis- sal of Count II. The notice was signed by only Transamerica’s counsel. The district court did not enter any order purporting to dismiss Count II. Count II is still pending. Transamerica’s October 18, 2024, filing was ineffective for several reasons. First, it was filed after the defendants filed an answer and a motion for summary judgment, USCA11 Case: 25-10967 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 11/12/2025 Page: 3 of 4

25-10967 Opinion of the Court 3

so it was not effective as a notice of dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) (“[A] plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing . . . a notice . . . before the opposing party serves ei- ther an answer or a motion for summary judgment.”). Second, the filing was not signed by the defendants’ counsel, so it was not ef- fective as a stipulation of dismissal. See id. R. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) (“[A] plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing . . . a stipulation . . . signed by all parties who have appeared.”). Third, the district court did not enter an order purporting to dismiss the claim, so it was not dismissed by court order either. See id. R. 41(a)(2) (“Except as provided in Rule 41(a)(1), an action may be dis- missed . . . only by court order.”); see also Sanchez v. Discount Rock & Sand, Inc., 84 F.4th 1283, 1292 (11th Cir. 2023) (explaining that “Rule 41(a)(2) . . . doesn’t require a motion” and that we have ap- proved orders that treated ineffective notices and stipulations as re- quests for such orders). As a result, this appeal is not taken from a final decision. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (“The courts of appeals . . . have jurisdiction [over] appeals from all final decisions of the district courts.”); Supreme Fuels Trading FZE v. Sargeant, 689 F.3d 1244, 1246 (11th Cir. 2012) (explaining that a ruling that disposes of fewer than all claims of all parties is not final). “This result could have been avoided by read- ing the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” CMYK Enters., Inc. v. Ad- vanced Print Techs., LLC, No. 24-13766, manuscript op. at 14 (11th Cir. Sep. 12, 2025). For example, Transamerica could have used Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 to amend the operative complaint. See id. at 15. USCA11 Case: 25-10967 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 11/12/2025 Page: 4 of 4

4 Opinion of the Court 25-10967

Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdic- tion.