In Kamal v. Eden Creamery, LLC, No. 21-56260 (9th Cir. Dec. 21, 2023), the panel holds that voluntary dismissal must, as a matter of course, be granted without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) unless the defendant can establish that it would suffer legal prejudice, meaning “prejudice to some legal interest, some legal claim,Continue reading “Split Ninth Circuit Panel Holds That It Is an Abuse of Discretion to Deny Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) Unless the Defendant Can Prove Legal Prejudice”
Tag Archives: Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2)
Eleventh Circuit Holds That Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) Stipulation Must Be Signed by All Parties Who Have Appeared in a Lawsuit to Be Effective, Creating Split with the Fifth Circuit
In City of Jacksonville v. Jacksonville Hospitality Holdings, L.P., No. 22-12419 (11th Cir. Sept. 13, 2023), the Eleventh Circuit holds in a matter of first impression that all parties to a case—not just those directly involved in the dismissal—must sign a Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal motion for it to be effective. Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)Continue reading “Eleventh Circuit Holds That Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) Stipulation Must Be Signed by All Parties Who Have Appeared in a Lawsuit to Be Effective, Creating Split with the Fifth Circuit”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) Cannot Be Used to Dismiss Individual Claims, Holds Eleventh Circuit
In Rosell v. VMSB, LLC, No. 22-11325 (11th Cir. May 12, 2023), The Eleventh Circuit “make[s] explicit what our precedent has implied for almost two decades: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) provides only for the dismissal of an entire action. Any attempt to use this rule to dismiss a single claim, or anything lessContinue reading “Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) Cannot Be Used to Dismiss Individual Claims, Holds Eleventh Circuit”
Sixth Circuit Divides Over Whether Voluntary Dismissal of Undecided Claims Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), “With the Intention of Reinstating the Dismissed Claims,” Creates an Appealable Final Judgment
In Rowland v. Southern Health Partners, Inc., No. 20-5944 (6th Cir. July 21, 2021), the panel splits over the meaning of its prior case law, holding that a voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2) of claims that might be refiled after a successful appeal does not present a final, appealable judgment under 28 U.S.C.Continue reading “Sixth Circuit Divides Over Whether Voluntary Dismissal of Undecided Claims Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), “With the Intention of Reinstating the Dismissed Claims,” Creates an Appealable Final Judgment”
Class Action Lawyer Persuades Tenth Circuit to Vacate Conditions on Rule 41(a)(2) Dismissal That Limited Him from Refiling Action
In Frank v. Crawley Petroleum Corp., No. 20-6018 (10th Cir. Mar. 29, 2021), the Tenth Circuit holds that a plaintiff’s class-action lawyer has standing to challenge restrictions on his practice that a district court imposed in a Rule 41(a)(2) voluntary dismissal. The class action, removed to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act, concernedContinue reading “Class Action Lawyer Persuades Tenth Circuit to Vacate Conditions on Rule 41(a)(2) Dismissal That Limited Him from Refiling Action”
Three-Judge Panel Can Overrule Circuit Precedent If Its Reasoning Is “Irreconcilable” With Intervening Supreme Court Authority, Holds Ninth Circuit
In Langere v. Verizon Wireless Servs., No. 19-55747 (9th Cir. Dec. 29, 2020), the Ninth Circuit clarifies the standard for when a three-judge panel may overrule circuit precedent in the face of “irreconcilable” Supreme Court authority. It holds that it is not necessary for the prior circuit caselaw to be on all fours with theContinue reading “Three-Judge Panel Can Overrule Circuit Precedent If Its Reasoning Is “Irreconcilable” With Intervening Supreme Court Authority, Holds Ninth Circuit”
Paul Mollica's Federal Courts Blog 