Abandoning (Rather than Dismissing) Claims to Create Finality
In Lowery v. Amguard Insurance Co., the Eleventh Circuit allowed an plaintiff to create a final, appealable decision by abandoning an unresolved claim. This should not be remarkable; courts have long allowed parties to abandon unresolved claims—even in the middle of oral argument—to cure defects in appellate jurisdiction. But the decision seems to conflict with the Eleventh Circuit’s rule that litigants cannot voluntarily dismiss discrete claims.
Voluntarily Dismissing Claims
The Eleventh Circuit has recently been adamant in holding that litigants cannot voluntarily dismiss discrete claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. Rule 41 allows for the voluntary dismissal of “actions” by notice, stipulation, or court order. And the Eleventh Circuit has repeatedly said that the rule’s use of the term “action”—not “claim”—means that litigants can dismiss only entire actions under Rule 41. So when litigants try to create a final decision by voluntarily dismissing unresolved claims, the Eleventh Circuit has dismissed those appeals for a lack of a final decision. (See my posts Finality After Rule 41 Dismissals of Claims & Actions and More on Rule 41 Dismissals of Actions and Claims for more on some of these decisions.)
Abandoning Claims
Lowery did not mention any of these cases on voluntary dismissals. It instead cited Mid City Management Corp. v. Loewi Realty Corp., in which the Fifth Circuit held that abandoning unresolved claims in response to an inquiry from the district court judge produces a final decision. The Lowery court thought that “a written notice abandoning a claim without objection by the opposing party accomplishes the same thing.” So whether initiated by the district court or the parties, abandoning unresolved claims results in a final, appealable decision.
Abandoning v. Voluntarily Dismissing Claims
Lowery reached the right result. The plaintiffs were willing to abandon the only unresolved claim. So district court proceedings were over. It makes complete sense to hold that there was a final decision.
But I don’t see a meaningful difference between “voluntarily dismissing” a claim and “abandoning” it. In the cases in which litigants purported to use Rule 41 to voluntarily dismiss unresolved claims, their conduct could easily be seen as abandoning those claims. And if we characterized those actions as abandoning unresolved claims, Lowery suggests that there would have been a final decision.
Lowery v. Amguard Insurance Co., 2023 WL 6531565 (11th Cir. Oct. 6, 2023), available at the Eleventh Circuit and Westlaw
Final Decisions PLLC is an appellate boutique and consultancy that focuses on federal appellate jurisdiction. We partner with lawyers facing appellate-jurisdiction issues, working as consultants or co-counsel to achieve positive outcomes on appeal. Contact us to learn how we can work together.
Learn More ContactRelated Posts
In United States v. Wilson, the Ninth Circuit permitted the government to appeal a discovery order in a criminal case after the government asked the district court to dismiss the indictment to facilitate an appeal. Although the order was interlocutory, the Ninth Circuit could review it under 18 U.S.C. § 3731. That’s because § 3731 doesn’t require […]
Continue reading....
In Jones v. U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, the Fourth Circuit reviewed a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board even though the petitioners voluntarily dismissed some of their theories of relief. That voluntary dismissal was with prejudice, which made it highly unlikely that the voluntarily dismissed theories would ever resurface. So the petitioners were […]
Continue reading....
In New York State Telecommunications Association v. James, the Second Circuit split over an attempt at manufacturing finality. The district court had granted a preliminary injunction after concluding that federal law preempted a New York state law. The parties then stipulated to entry of a final judgment. A majority of the Second Circuit determined that […]
Continue reading....
Courts have long held that the merger doctrine does not apply when an action is dismissed for a failure to prosecute. In Marquez v. Silver, the Second Circuit extended this holding to actions dismissed as a discovery sanction. The court explained that sanction dismissals carry the same risk of strategic behavior as failure-to-prosecute dismissals. The […]
Continue reading....
Last October, the Eleventh Circuit held in Lowery v. Amguard Insurance Co. that litigants can create a final decision by abandoning unresolved claims. As I noted at the time, this holding stood in some tension with the Eleventh Circuit’s rule that litigants cannot voluntarily dismiss discrete claims. And although I liked the outcome, I did […]
Continue reading....Recent Posts
In Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Illinois Mine Subsidence Insurance Fund, the Seventh Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to immediately review an order that narrowed the potential injunctive relief in an action. The plaintiff in Union Pacific sought to permanently enjoin the defendant from bringing certain claims against the plaintiff. The district court rejected some […]
Continue reading....
May saw several decisions on effective injunction denials. One of those decisions raised an interesting question about the Supreme Court’s test for when a district court order effective denies a preliminary injunction. In other developments, the Fifth Circuit sat en banc to jettison its rule barring review of waiver-based remands. Other decisions addressed the finality […]
Continue reading....
In Heidi Group, Inc.v. Texas Health and Human Services Commission, the Fifth Circuit reviewed the denial of federal and state immunities but declined to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over other issues. In the course of doing so, one judge questioned the collateral-order doctrine’s application to state immunities, and the entire court questioned the doctrine of […]
Continue reading....
The Supreme Court granted cert in GEO Group, Inc. v. Menocal. The case asks if defendants can immediately appeal from the denial of derivative sovereign immunity via the collateral-order doctrine. I wrote about the petition and the underlying circuit split earlier this year. And I wrote about the Tenth Circuit decision from which the petition stems […]
Continue reading....
Injunction appeals have been in the spotlight of late. We’ve seen a few recent decisions on appeals from temporary restraining orders. And this month has already produced three cases involving effective denials of preliminary injunctions. One of these cases raised a question about the test for effective—and thus appealable—injunction denials. Under the Supreme Court’s decision […]
Continue reading....