Eutsey et al v. Polk et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 25-60446-CIV-SINGHAL
KEVIN EUTSEY and
SATOR INVESTMENTS, LLC,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
LEONARD J. POLK, JR., ESQ. and
GRAND LODGE OF IMPROVED BENEVOLENT
AND PROTECTIVE ORDER OF ELKS OF THE
WORLD, INC.,
Defendants.
__________________________________________________/
OMNIBUS ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Voluntary Dismissal
Without Prejudice (the “Dismissal Motion”) (DE [40]) and Defendants’ Unopposed Motion
to Extend Certain Pretrial Deadlines Pending Ruling on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Voluntary
Dismissal (DE [42]) (the “Extension Motion”). This litigation centers around events that
occurred during a jury trial in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit of Florida. That litigation is
still pending.
This suit has been proceeding for months, and Plaintiffs have a fully briefed motion
for summary judgment pending. (DE [21]). Plaintiffs requested leave to amend the
complaint to add allegations of fraud. This Court denied the motion because of the late
stage of litigation and because Plaintiffs had been long aware of those potential
arguments and could have raised them earlier. (DE [39]). Having been denied the
opportunity to amend, Plaintiffs now seek to dismiss this action without prejudice so they
can still litigate with more causes of action at a later date. (DE [40] p. 4). Plaintiffs claim
Case 0:25-cv-60446-AHS Document 43 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/31/2025 Page 1 of 3

2
they have new evidence of fraud—briefing by a different party in the state litigation—that
Plaintiffs want to introduce in future proceedings. Id. One of the Plaintiffs recently suffered
a family death and understandably wants to focus on family, not litigation.
This Court “enjoys broad discretion” to dismiss a case at a plaintiff’s request “on
terms that the court considers proper.” Pontenberg v. Bos. Sci. Corp., 252 F.3d 1253,
1255 (11th Cir. 2001); Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 41(a)(2). When determining whether to grant
dismissal without prejudice, courts primarily consider whether dismissal would prejudice
the opposing side. See Pontenberg, 252 F.3d at 1256; Martin v. Allied Interstate, LLC,
192 F. Supp. 3d 1296, 1300 (S.D. Fla. 2016). Courts consider the stage of litigation, the
resources invested, and the ripe motions that are pending. See generally, Holcomb v.
Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., No. 10-81186-CV, 2012 WL 12868404, at *1 (S.D. Fla.
Feb. 9, 2012).
Here, 	voluntary 	dismissal, 	especially 	if 	not 	conditioned 	on 	Plaintiffs 	paying
Defendants’ costs and fees, would prejudice Defendants. Trial is currently scheduled in
about three months. (DE [15]). Discovery is completed. (DE [20]). This litigation is nearing
the end stage. Defendants have invested significant resources in defending this action.
See (DE [41] p. 5-6). To dismiss the case now, making Defendants bear their costs but
permitting Plaintiffs to litigate again when more convenient to them, would unfairly
prejudice Defendants. Although this Court understands Plaintiff Eutsey’s desire to spend
more time with family, this Court cannot allow Plaintiffs to pause litigation now, attempt to
strengthen their case, and then sue again at their convenience, all while forcing
Defendants to brace for a second lawsuit and pay duplicative fees.
Defendants request that this Court dismiss this case with prejudice. But this Court
is hesitant to dismiss a case with prejudice without full briefing on that decision from the
Case 0:25-cv-60446-AHS Document 43 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/31/2025 Page 2 of 3

3
parties. Instead of depriving Plaintiffs of their opportunity to litigate the case anymore
without giving them a chance to be heard on the issue of dismissal with prejudice, this
Court leaves the matter in the hands of the parties. The litigation can continue, or Plaintiffs
could move again to dismiss without prejudice but agree to pay Defendants’ costs and
fees. The parties could also agree on terms to dismiss the case with prejudice. But this is
a decision for the parties to make, not this Court at this time. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. 	Plaintiffs’ Dismissal Motion (DE [40]) is DENIED.
2. 	Defendants’ Extension Motion (DE [42]) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN
PART. The deadline to file pre-trial motions, including dispositive motions, is
extended to January 14, 2026. The deadline to file motions in limine is extended
to 	January 	21, 	2026. 	All 	other deadlines and dates 	remain as 	previously
scheduled.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 31st day of
December 2025.
Copies furnished counsel via CM/ECF
Case 0:25-cv-60446-AHS Document 43 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/31/2025 Page 3 of 3