The Finality Trap: When 'Without Prejudice' Is Actually Prejudicial
Litigators should be aware of the prevailing law in their respective jurisdictions before dismissing claims without prejudice with the aim of securing a final, appealable judgment.
October 26, 2021 at 03:00 PM
9 minute read
Litigants routinely fall into the finality trap when trying to appeal from a partial final judgment. What is the finality trap and how does this happen? The typical scenario goes like this: a plaintiff brings a complaint asserting multiple claims in federal court. The plaintiff actually cares about only a subset of those claims. On summary judgment, the district court dismisses the plaintiff's favored claims with prejudice, leaving only the less favored claims to resolve. The plaintiff does not want to wait for the court to resolve those remaining claims before it appeals from the dismissal of its favored claims. At the same time, the plaintiff does not want to abandon those less favored claims entirely in case it does not prevail on appeal. The solution: After consulting with defense counsel, jointly filing a stipulated dismissal of the plaintiff's remaining claims, without prejudice, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Given that such dismissals are effective immediately, without any court order, there is supposedly nothing more for the district court to do, and the case is closed. The plaintiff then appeals, having in its hand something that purports to be a final judgment. Whether that judgment is, in fact, "final" from the court of appeals' perspective … well, as it turns out, that depends on what part of the country the litigants are in.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1291, courts of appeals "have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States." Id. A "final decision" is one that "ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment." Pitney Bowes v. Mestre, 701 F.2d 1365, 1368 (11th Cir. 1983) (citing Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233 (1945)). A partial final judgment dismissing certain claims with prejudice, followed by the stipulated dismissal of all other pending claims (albeit without prejudice), as in the scenario described above, is one that, on its face, would seem to fall within that definition. From the district court's perspective, there is nothing left for it to do. In the event that the plaintiff were to reassert its voluntarily dismissed claims at some point in the future, it would need to do so by filing a new civil action.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllMoFo Associate Sees a Familiar Face During Her First Appellate Argument: Justice Breyer
Litigators of the Week: 3 Former SGs Team Up In a Major Opioid Win for Pharmacies at the Ohio Supreme Court
'The Most Peculiar Federal Court in the Country' Comes to Berkeley Law
Litigators of the Week: The Eighth Circuit Knocks Out a $564M Verdict Against BMO in Ponzi Case
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250