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

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

• Hydraulic Press MFG. Co. v. Williams
  165 F.2d 489· 7th Cir.· 1947-12-09 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the patent claims at issue were invalid due to anticipation by prior art and lack of patentable novelty, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint.
• Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Reeves
  148 F.2d 731· 8th Cir.· 1945-03-28 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a writ of mandamus cannot be used to control a trial court's discretion or compel it to reverse a decision within its jurisdiction.
• Romika-USA, Inc. v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A.
  514 F. Supp. 2d 1334· S.D. Fla.· 2007-05-14 ·cited 10×
  The court granted summary judgment for the defendant on claims of tortious interference and breach of third-party beneficiary contract, and dismissed the breach of contract claim without prejudice conditioned on the plaintiff paying the defendant's costs and fees.
• Sinclair v. Soniform, Inc.
  935 F.2d 599· 3d Cir.· 1991-06-06 ·cited 10×
  The court held that claims against a ship's crew for negligence during a scuba diving excursion fall within federal admiralty jurisdiction, and claims against equipment manufacturers arise from a common nucleus of operative fact, thus falling under supplemental jurisdiction.
• Nicolaos Ikospentakis v. Thalassic S.S. Agency & Kyriakos Zervos
  915 F.2d 176· 5th Cir.· 1990-10-25 ·cited 10×
  The district court abused its discretion by granting a voluntary dismissal without prejudice, as it effectively stripped the defendants of their forum non conveniens defense, which is unavailable in Louisiana state courts.
• Sami Rebekah LAU v. Glendora Unified Sch. Dist.
  792 F.2d 929· 9th Cir.· 1986-06-24 ·cited 10×
  The court did not reach the question of the propriety or amount of attorney's fees awarded as a condition of a Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal in a Title VII action.
• United States v. Outboard Marine Corp.
  789 F.2d 497· 7th Cir.· 1986-04-22 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the government's injunctive relief action without prejudice, conditioned on the government executing a covenant not to sue for injunctive relief, to allow for immediate cleanup of hazardous waste.
• Delo H. Caspary v. The La. Land & Exploration Co.
  725 F.2d 189· 2d Cir.· 1984-01-05 ·cited 10×
  An appellate court has jurisdiction to permit a plaintiff to amend their complaint to delete remaining untried claims, thereby creating a final judgment for appellate review.
• Main Line Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Tri-Kell, Inc.
  721 F.2d 904· 3d Cir.· 1983-11-15 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court erroneously dismissed the appeal as moot based on an invalid bankruptcy court order issued after jurisdiction had transferred.
• Atl. Corp. v. United States
  311 F.2d 907· 1st Cir.· 1962-12-31 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the case entirely, as it retained jurisdiction over Atlantic's cross-claim against co-defendants, but that the district court correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate Atlantic's claim against the co-defen
• Emergency Recovery, Inc. v. Hufnagle
  77 F.4th 1317· 11th Cir.· 2023-08-14 ·cited 8×
  The Court held that a motion to alter or amend a voluntary dismissal order under Rule 41(a)(2) is a proper Rule 59(e) motion, thus tolling the time to appeal, and that the district court erred in finding otherwise.
• Scotts Valley Band OF Pomo Indians OF the Sugar Bowl Rancheria v. United States
  921 F.2d 924· 9th Cir.· 1990-12-21 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the City of Chico has a protectable interest in the underlying action and that its interest is not adequately represented by the existing parties, thus entitling it to intervene as of right.
• Nannette B. Davis v. USX Corp.
  819 F.2d 1270· 4th Cir.· 1987-06-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying the plaintiff's motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice based on conditions that unfairly prejudiced the plaintiff's right to pursue state law claims in state court.
• Wakefield v. N. Telecom, Inc.
  769 F.2d 109· 2d Cir.· 1985-08-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the jury instructions regarding the breach of contract claim were erroneous, requiring a new trial, and that the age discrimination claim should have been dismissed with prejudice.
• United States v. MT. Vernon Mem'l Ests., Inc.
  734 F.2d 1230· 7th Cir.· 1984-05-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the unconditional voluntary dismissal of the government's action was a final judgment, and the companies' subsequent motion to reinstate was properly denied as no cause of action remained for them to reinstate.
• Stripe-A-Zone v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm'rs & the Sec'y of Labor
  643 F.2d 230· 5th Cir.· 1981-04-08 ·cited 8×
  A remand order from the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) is not a final order and therefore not immediately appealable under Section 11(a) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.
• Trico Prods. Corp. v. Anderson Co.
  147 F.2d 721· 7th Cir.· 1945-03-07 ·cited 8×
  A counterclaim for a declaratory judgment of patent invalidity and noninfringement is permissible even when the issues are the same as those raised by the complaint and answer.
• Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Costa Lines Cargo Servs., Inc.
  903 F.2d 352· 5th Cir.· 1990-05-31 ·cited 7×
  The court held that complete diversity existed, removal objections were waived, and summary judgment was proper for the defendants.
• Kovalic v. DEC Int'l, Inc.
  855 F.2d 471· 7th Cir.· 1988-08-24 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the plaintiff's federal age discrimination lawsuit without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2).
• Laurence E. Randall v. Merrill Lynch
  820 F.2d 1317· D.C. Cir.· 1987-06-19 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in vacating the Randalls' second voluntary dismissal.
• Trujillo v. Banco Central Del Ecuador
  229 F. Supp. 2d 1369· S.D. Fla.· 2002-11-01 ·cited 6×
  Banco Central Del Ecuador sought approximately $2 million in attorney's fees and costs after plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their defamation action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). The district court reduced the award to $720,566.33 after requiring the defe
• LaDonna Harrison v. Edison Bros. Apparel Stores
  924 F.2d 530· 4th Cir.· 1991-01-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a North Carolina employee fired for refusing sexual advances stated a claim for wrongful discharge, but that dismissal of claims against the alleged harasser barred derivative claims against the employer.
• Kramer v. Butler
  845 F.2d 1291· 5th Cir.· 1988-05-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the petitioner did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to dismiss without prejudice.
• Gravatt v. Columbia Univ.
  845 F.2d 54· 2d Cir.· 1988-04-22 ·cited 6×
  A district court may convert a plaintiff's motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice to a dismissal with prejudice, but must afford the plaintiff an opportunity to withdraw the motion before doing so.
• Herring v. City OF Whitehall
  804 F.2d 464· 8th Cir.· 1986-10-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a district court abused its discretion by dismissing a case with prejudice when the plaintiffs were unable to pay costs and fees imposed as a condition for refiling after their attorney's nonsuit, especially when the attorney's conduct caused the nonsuit.
• S.A. Andes v. Versant Corp.
  788 F.2d 1033· 4th Cir.· 1986-04-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice, but vacated the dismissal with prejudice due to lack of notice and opportunity to be heard.
• Climax Molybdenum Co. v. Secretary OF Labor
  703 F.2d 447· 10th Cir.· 1983-03-21 ·cited 6×
  The court should have allowed Climax to set off expenses incurred in good faith efforts to control silica dust.
• Curlee Bowers v. ST. Louis Sw. Ry. Co.
  668 F.2d 369· 8th Cir.· 1981-12-29 ·cited 6×
  An order granting a voluntary dismissal is generally not appealable by the plaintiff, even if conditional, unless the plaintiff demonstrates legal prejudice and lack of acquiescence.
• Curtis v. United Transp. Union
  648 F.2d 492· 8th Cir.· 1981-05-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(2) does not toll the statute of limitations, and Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) does not create an exception to this rule.
• Int'l Video Corp. v. Ampex Corp.
  484 F.2d 634· 9th Cir.· 1973-09-04 ·cited 6×
  The court held that dismissals for lack of jurisdiction are not governed by Rule 41 and that a counterclaim must also be dismissed if the main claim lacks a justiciable controversy.
• Stern v. Inter-Mountain Tel. Co.
  226 F.2d 409· 6th Cir.· 1955-10-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a federal court's dismissal order with conditions, even if it conflicts with state law regarding voluntary nonsuit, is permissible under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2).
• Manze v. State Farm Ins. Co. Appeal of Manze
  817 F.2d 1062· 3d Cir.· 1987-05-04 ·cited 5×
  A plaintiff's timely notice of voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) precludes the court from subsequently dismissing the action with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2), and an order appointing an arbitrator is final and appealable if it grants full relief.
• In re Int'l Airport INN P'ship v. Int'l Airport INN P'ship
  517 F.2d 510· 9th Cir.· 1975-05-19 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the referee did not abuse discretion in dismissing the Chapter XI bankruptcy petition, as there was no plain legal prejudice to the creditors.
• Pezold Air Charters v. Phoenix Corp.
  979 F. Supp. 2d 1302· M.D. Fla.· 2000-05-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that PAC's claims should not be dismissed, but Phoenix's counterclaims could not survive summary judgment due to lack of evidence. The court also denied Phoenix's motion to voluntarily dismiss its counterclaims.
• LEE v. Vill. OF River Forest
  936 F.2d 976· 7th Cir.· 1991-07-12 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of the Rule 60(b)(6) motion and its dismissal of the second action on res judicata grounds.
• Taragan v. ELI Lilly & Co., Inc.
  838 F.2d 1337· D.C. Cir.· 1988-02-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a district court must adequately explain its refusal to condition a voluntary dismissal on the payment of the opposing party's wasted attorneys' fees.
• Emile F. duPONT and Margaret D. duPont v. United States
  385 F.2d 780· 3d Cir.· 1967-11-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint without allowing plaintiffs an opportunity to present further evidence after rejecting their expert's testimony on legal grounds.
• Davis v. McLAUGHLIN
  326 F.2d 881· 9th Cir.· 1964-01-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district judge did not err in refusing to recuse himself and that the dismissal with prejudice for failure to meet court-imposed conditions was proper.
• Reynolds v. Wabash R.R. Co.
  236 F.2d 387· 8th Cir.· 1956-09-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in vacating an order that improperly added parties to destroy diversity jurisdiction and in dismissing the case for want of prosecution.
• Lackner Co., Inc. v. Quehl Sign Co.
  145 F.2d 932· 6th Cir.· 1944-12-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a justiciable controversy existed, allowing adjudication of patent validity despite plaintiffs' offer to dismiss and license, because infringement was still asserted and public interest favored resolution.
• Boldstar Tech., LLC v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
  560 F. Supp. 2d 1275· S.D. Fla.· 2008-05-28 ·cited 3×
  The court held that plaintiff Boldstar Technical, LLC should be dismissed with prejudice for lack of standing, as it holds no interest in the patent-in-suit and the remaining plaintiff can effectively prosecute the claim.
• Davis v. TXO Prod. Corp.
  929 F.2d 1515· 10th Cir.· 1991-04-11 ·cited 3×
  A party does not waive the right to appeal a dismissal of a claim if the claim was already dismissed on its merits and repleading it would be futile. The court also held that the actions of the appellee did not breach an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing under Oklah
• Metro. Fed. Bank OF Iowa v. W.R. Grace & Co.
  999 F.2d 1257· 8th Cir.· 1993-07-27 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on asbestos abatement costs and its decision to allow voluntary dismissal of claims related to non-Minnesota buildings, finding no abuse of discretion.
• Manshack v. Sw. Elec. Power Co.
  915 F.2d 172· 5th Cir.· 1990-10-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the personal injury lawsuit without prejudice, nor in failing to strictly adhere to local rules regarding notice.
• Templeton v. Nedlloyd Lines
  901 F.2d 1273· 5th Cir.· 1990-05-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a district court does not abuse its discretion by granting a voluntary dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(2) even when a motion to join non-diverse parties is pending, as 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e) does not prohibit such a dismissal.
• Robinson v. Willow Glen Acad. and/or Juneau Acad.
  895 F.2d 1168· 7th Cir.· 1990-02-13 ·cited 2×
  A voluntarily dismissed federal diversity suit does not toll the statute of limitations under Wisconsin law because the dismissal renders the action a nullity.
• Brady v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D.
  893 F.2d 872· 7th Cir.· 1989-09-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the claimant failed to properly pursue judicial review of his individual claim for benefits, and his remedy, if any, lay in enforcing the Boatman Agreement in the appropriate forum.
• ALL Am. Distrib. Co., Inc. v. Miller Brewing Co.
  736 F.2d 530· 9th Cir.· 1984-06-29 ·cited 2×
  A party can be considered a 'prevailing party' entitled to attorney fees under the Arizona Spirituous Liquor Franchises Act even without a full adjudication on the merits, if the totality of the litigation shows they prevailed.
• Danke v. The Standard Fire Ins. Co.
  2024 WL 3718184· M.D. Fla.· 2025-08-06 ·cited 1×
  A district court should grant a plaintiff's motion for voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) unless the defendant would suffer clear legal prejudice beyond the mere prospect of a second lawsuit.
• Hussain v. Stadelman
  2006 WL 2189542· M.D. Fla.· 2023-04-24 ·cited 1×
  The court held that a joint stipulation for dismissal without prejudice requires a formal motion and court order under Rule 41(a)(2).