Tag Archives: Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2)

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”