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.
This content has been archived.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
© 2024 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 AllLitigators 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
Litigator of the Week: Reversing a $2B Trade Secret Verdict, the Largest in Va. History
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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