Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) outlines the procedure for voluntary dismissals of “an action” at the parties’ request. The Eleventh Circuit, in an opinion written by Judge Britt Grant, has again emphasized that “[a]ny attempt to use this rule to dismiss a single claim, or anything less than the entire action will be invalid.” Rosell v. VMSB, LLC, 67 F.4th 1141, 1143 (11th Cir. May 12, 2023).
Employees of a restaurant sued their employer on claims involving the minimum wage and overtime pay obligations under the Fair Labor Standards Act and comparable Florida laws. The complaint alleged three counts, and a magistrate judge recommended granting partial summary judgment for the defendant on Counts I and II and denying summary judgment to both sides on Count III. The parties then settled Count III, and the plaintiffs, without opposition, moved the district court to approve the settlement and to “direct the clerk to dismiss Count III” with prejudice.
The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation, entered judgment on Counts I and II, and approved the parties’ settlement with respect to Count III. The district court’s order closed the case and also directed the parties to “file a joint stipulation of dismissal of Count 3 with prejudice” within 30 days and added that the “stipulation shall be self-executing upon its filing.” The plaintiffs appealed their summary judgment losses on Counts I and II.
The Eleventh Circuit, recognizing its sua sponte obligation to consider its subject matter jurisdiction, concluded that the dismissal of Count III was procedurally improper and dismissed the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because a final judgment was never rendered. The court did not decide whether the parties or court intended the dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) or 41(a)(2), finding that the dismissal was improper under either rule. The court explained that the same precedential reasoning in case law that “Rule 41(a)(1) cannot be used to create appellate jurisdiction over a partial grant of summary judgment,” and that joint stipulations of voluntary dismissals may only be used to dismiss an entire action, applies equally to dismissals under Rule 41(a)(2).
Because the parties’ attempted dismissal of Count III was ineffective, that Count III remained pending before the district court and there was no final decision to review on appeal. The Eleventh Circuit further noted that the ruling in the case should not “create procedural oddities,” as parties may plan ahead with respect to resolving less than an entire action, such as by seeking partial final judgment under Rule 54(b) from the district court, or by amending their complaints under Rule 15.