Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 41(A)(2)

172 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• LeCOMPTE v. MR. Chip, Inc.
  528 F.2d 601· 5th Cir.· 1976-03-15 ·cited 117×
  An order granting a voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2) is appealable by the plaintiff if the conditions imposed create legal prejudice, rather than mere practical inconvenience, to the plaintiff's ability to refile the action.
• Harvey Aluminum, Inc. v. Am. Cyanamid Co.
  203 F.2d 105· 2d Cir.· 1953-03-16 ·cited 92×
  The court held that a voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) was ineffective because it occurred after significant proceedings and the merits had been addressed, and that the denial of an injunction against foreign proceedings was also erroneous.
• Reta L. McCANTS v. Ford Motor Co., Inc.
  781 F.2d 855· 11th Cir.· 1986-02-03 ·cited 74×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the case without prejudice, but remanded for the district court to consider imposing conditions on the dismissal.
• Ordower v. Feldman
  826 F.2d 1569· 7th Cir.· 1987-08-21 ·cited 69×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing sanctions against plaintiffs and their counsel for unreasonably and vexatiously multiplying proceedings through untimely service of process.
• Kern v. TXO Prod. Corp.
  738 F.2d 968· 8th Cir.· 1984-07-17 ·cited 62×
  The court held that dismissing a case without prejudice after trial has begun is within the district court's discretion, but it was an abuse of discretion not to condition the dismissal on payment of the defendant's costs and attorney's fees.
• Unioil, Inc. v. E.F. Hutton & Co., Inc.
  809 F.2d 548· 9th Cir.· 1986-10-15 ·cited 58×
  The Ninth Circuit held that an appeal from a conditional voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) is not permitted when the condition is payment of costs and attorney's fees, as this does not constitute legal prejudice. However, the court affirmed the imposition of Rule 11 sanctio
• Corley v. Long-Lewis, Inc.
  965 F.3d 1222· 11th Cir.· 2020-07-16 ·cited 53×
  An order granting a motion to voluntarily dismiss the remainder of a complaint under Rule 41(a)(2) qualifies as a final judgment for purposes of appeal, and territorial jurisdiction extends to review interlocutory orders that merge into a final judgment from a district court with
• Home Owners' Loan Corp. v. Huffman
  134 F.2d 314· 8th Cir.· 1943-03-25 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing the case without prejudice without conditioning it upon the payment of costs, as required by Rule 41(a)(2).
• City of Jacksonville v. Jacksonville Hospitality Holdings, L.P.
  82 F.4th 1031· 11th Cir.· 2023-09-13 ·cited 50×
  The Eleventh Circuit held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires stipulations of dismissal to be signed by all parties who have appeared in the lawsuit, not just those involved in the specific dismissal.
• The Young Eng'rs, Inc. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n
  721 F.2d 1305· Fed. Cir.· 1983-11-08 ·cited 46×
  The court held that presidential disapproval of an ITC determination does not terminate the investigation, and a prior district court dismissal with prejudice does not preclude a subsequent § 1337 proceeding if the causes of action are not the same.
• Meterlogic, Inc. v. Copier Solutions, Inc.
  185 F. Supp. 2d 1292· S.D. Fla.· 2002-01-15 ·cited 44×
  The court held that transfer of the case to the Western District of Missouri is warranted under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice.
• Johnston v. Cartwright
  355 F.2d 32· 8th Cir.· 1966-01-25 ·cited 44×
  The court held that an attorney's statement made in the context of a labor dispute, even before formal litigation, is protected by absolute privilege under Iowa law. The court also affirmed the trial court's discretionary dismissal of the action against other defendants under Rul
• Rosell v. VMSB, LLC
  67 F.4th 1141· 11th Cir.· 2023-05-12 ·cited 41×
  Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) only permits the dismissal of an entire action, not a single claim or part of an action, and an attempted partial dismissal does not create a final judgment for appellate review.
• Am. Cyanamid Co. v. McGHEE
  317 F.2d 295· 5th Cir.· 1963-05-08 ·cited 41×
  Rule 41(a)(1) does not limit the court's discretion under Rule 41(a)(2) to impose terms and conditions on a voluntary dismissal, even if it is a second dismissal.
• Studstill v. Borg Warner Leasing
  806 F.2d 1005· 11th Cir.· 1986-12-22 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the plaintiff's voluntary dismissal of her Title VII claim was not appealable and that her state tort claims were barred by Florida's Workers' Compensation Act exclusivity provision.
• McGRAW-Edison Co. v. Preformed Line Prods. Co.
  362 F.2d 339· 9th Cir.· 1966-05-26 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing a patent infringement counterclaim without prejudice, considering the pendency of related litigation in another district court.
• Quad/Graphics, Inc. v. Myron Fass
  724 F.2d 1230· 7th Cir.· 1983-11-03 ·cited 33×
  A non-settling party must demonstrate plain legal prejudice to have standing to challenge a partial settlement, and the settlement here did not cause such prejudice.
• Plains Growers, Inc. v. Ickes-Braun Glasshouses, Inc.
  474 F.2d 250· 5th Cir.· 1973-02-09 ·cited 33×
  The court held that a plaintiff has an absolute right to voluntary dismissal without prejudice against a defendant who has not filed an answer or motion for summary judgment, even if the action remains pending against other defendants. However, the court affirmed the district cou
• Yoffe v. Keller Indus., Inc.
  580 F.2d 126· 5th Cir.· 1978-09-13 ·cited 30×
  A plaintiff cannot appeal a voluntary dismissal order under Rule 41(a)(2) if the conditions imposed, such as attorneys' fees and costs, do not constitute 'legal prejudice' and the plaintiff has not acquiesced to them.
• Betty v. Pace
  409 F.2d 331· 7th Cir.· 1969-04-01 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the defendant was not liable for the driver's negligence because the driver was using the vehicle for personal purposes and not within the scope of his employment under Indiana law.
• Villegas v. Princeton Farms
  893 F.2d 919· 7th Cir.· 1990-01-22 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a district court abuses its discretion by deciding a case on the merits under diversity jurisdiction and then vacating that decision to allow the plaintiff to refile in state court.
• GAF Corp. v. Transamerica Ins. Co.
  665 F.2d 364· D.C. Cir.· 1981-09-03 ·cited 26×
  The court held that attorneys' fees can be awarded as a condition of voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2), but remanded for a specific explanation of the award amount to ensure it only covers costs rendered useless by the dismissal.
• United States v. $70
  929 F.3d 1293· 11th Cir.· 2019-07-08 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the government to dismiss its forfeiture complaint without prejudice, and that the claimants were not entitled to attorney's fees because they did not substantially prevail.
• ROE v. Operation Rescue
  919 F.2d 857· 3d Cir.· 1990-11-26 ·cited 24×
  The court affirmed the permanent injunction based on state-law claims and reversed the dismissal of certain plaintiffs for lack of standing, finding they had established a real and immediate threat of future injury.
• Smoot v. Honorable Noel P. FOX
  353 F.2d 830· 6th Cir.· 1965-12-13 ·cited 24×
  A district court cannot award attorney's fees and expenses as costs in an action at law, even if the action is dismissed with prejudice, as this would violate statutory limitations and the constitutional right to a jury trial.
• State Treas. OF THE State OF Mich. v. Barry
  168 F.3d 8· 11th Cir.· 1999-02-19 ·cited 22×
  The appellate court affirmed the trial court's award of attorney's fees against the mother but reversed the award against the Department of Revenue, finding that the Department was immune from such fees under section 61.16.
• In re William M. Kunstler. In re Barry Nakell. In re Lewis Pitts v. Britt
  914 F.2d 505· 4th Cir.· 1990-10-12 ·cited 22×
  The court held that Rule 11 sanctions can be imposed after a voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2), and that the attorneys violated Rule 11 by failing to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the facts and law, and by filing the complaint for an improper purpose.
• Williams v. Ford Motor Credit Co.
  627 F.2d 158· 8th Cir.· 1980-08-12 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by allowing the plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss her case without prejudice after a trial had concluded and a verdict rendered, as this caused substantial prejudice to the defendant.
• Larsen v. Switzer
  183 F.2d 850· 8th Cir.· 1950-08-15 ·cited 22×
  A writ of mandamus will not issue to compel a trial court to dismiss an action without prejudice after an answer has been filed, as such dismissal is within the court's discretion.
• Bolten v. Gen. Motors Corp.
  180 F.2d 379· 7th Cir.· 1950-03-07 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a plaintiff has a right to dismiss an action without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2) upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper, and the court erred in denying such a dismissal outright.
• Century Senior Servs. v. Consumer Health Benefit Ass'n
  770 F. Supp. 2d 1261· S.D. Fla.· 2011-03-09 ·cited 20×
  The court held that Magnolia's counterclaims for conversion and unjust enrichment against CSS were dismissed, but civil theft and piercing the corporate veil claims survived; the interpleader action would not be dismissed, and the case would be stayed.
• Burton Stern v. Barnett
  452 F.2d 211· 7th Cir.· 1971-10-14 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the referee abused his discretion by permitting the withdrawal and dismissal of the bankruptcy petition, as the objecting creditors would be unduly prejudiced.
• Grivas v. Parmelee Transp. Co.
  207 F.2d 334· 7th Cir.· 1953-10-01 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying plaintiff's motion to dismiss without prejudice based on an erroneous belief that a removed action grants an absolute right to a federal trial. The court asserted jurisdiction over the appeal from the final judgment.
• Terrovona v. Kincheloe
  852 F.2d 424· 9th Cir.· 1988-07-07 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the admission of hearsay testimony was constitutional, but remanded for further review of the warrantless arrest, waiver of rights, and admission of prior conviction evidence.
• McLAUGHLIN v. Cheshire
  676 F.2d 855· D.C. Cir.· 1982-04-30 ·cited 18×
  A district court's discretion to condition a voluntary dismissal on payment of a defendant's expenses is limited to compensating for harm beyond tactical disadvantage, particularly when litigation continues in another forum.
• Smoot v. Honorable Noel P. FOX
  340 F.2d 301· 6th Cir.· 1964-12-30 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a trial judge abuses discretion by denying a plaintiff's motion to dismiss an action with prejudice, especially when the plaintiff believes they cannot prove their case.
• Blue Mountain Constr. Co. v. Werner
  270 F.2d 305· 9th Cir.· 1959-08-19 ·cited 18×
  The trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action with prejudice for want of prosecution and defiance of a court order.
• Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. United Elec. Radio & Mach. Workers of Am.
  194 F.2d 770· 3d Cir.· 1952-02-21 ·cited 18×
  A district court's discretionary decision to dismiss a plaintiff's suit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) should not be disturbed on appeal unless it results in plain prejudice to the defendant.
• Seidman v. City OF Beverly Hills & Tom John Auto., Inc.
  785 F.2d 1447· 9th Cir.· 1986-04-03 ·cited 16×
  A plaintiff cannot appeal a voluntary dismissal of an action, even if it follows the denial of class certification, because such a dismissal deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction.
• Bamm, Inc. v. GAF Corp.
  651 F.2d 389· 5th Cir.· 1981-07-23 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying Bamm's motion for leave to amend its complaint.
• Hoffmann v. Alside, Inc.
  596 F.2d 822· 8th Cir.· 1979-04-27 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss the case without prejudice, even if the dismissal was to circumvent a prior ruling.
• Nat'l Juv. LAW Ctr., Inc. v. Regnery
  738 F.2d 455· D.C. Cir.· 1984-06-22 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the government was not legally obligated to continue funding the Law Center's litigation beyond the grant periods, as no promise of continued funding was made and reliance on such a promise would have been unreasonable.
• Diamond v. United States
  267 F.2d 23· 5th Cir.· 1959-05-19 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2) requires a hearing to determine terms and conditions, and the court has discretion to deny the motion.
• Serendipity at Sea, LLC v. Underwriters at Lloyd's of London Subscribing to Policy No. 187581
  56 F.4th 1280· 11th Cir.· 2023-01-04 ·cited 13×
  The court held that while the insured breached the Captain Warranty, a genuine dispute of material fact remains regarding whether that breach increased the hazard to the vessel, precluding summary judgment.
• Colombrito v. Galen G. Kelly
  764 F.2d 122· 2d Cir.· 1985-06-12 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the district court erred in awarding attorney's fees to the defendants because the plaintiff's claims were not frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless, and the stipulation did not waive the right to contest the fee award's appropriateness.
• Pattiz v. Schwartz
  386 F.2d 300· 8th Cir.· 1968-01-15 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the district court had the power under Rule 60(a) to correct the record to reflect the nunc pro tunc filing of an amended complaint, as the omission was an oversight or clerical error.
• Conafay v. Wyeth Labs.
  793 F.2d 350· D.C. Cir.· 1986-06-17 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a plaintiff who proceeds to litigate on the merits after denial of a motion for voluntary dismissal waives the right to appeal that denial.
• Puerto RICO Mar. Shipping Auth. v. Leith
  668 F.2d 46· 1st Cir.· 1981-12-15 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2) and without imposing costs or attorney's fees, nor in failing to hold a hearing.
• Ayers v. Davidson
  285 F.2d 137· 5th Cir.· 1960-12-30 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' action was barred by the statute of limitations because the recording of the deed provided constructive notice of any fraud.
• Larsen v. Nordbye
  181 F.2d 765· 8th Cir.· 1950-05-01 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a district judge's denial of a motion to dismiss an action without prejudice is not reviewable by writ of mandamus or prohibition.