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 City of Martinsville v. Express Scripts, Inc., a divided Fourth Circuit held that a court must stay proceedings—and not process a remand order—if the defendant appeals before the district court can send the remand order to the state court. The majority thought that the rule of Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co.—particularly as the […]
Continue reading....
Perlman Appeals in the Grand Jury Context In In re Grand Jury Subpoeans Dated Sep. 13, 2023, the Second Circuit held that the target of a grand jury investigation could appeal an order directing the target’s attorneys to disclose documents over a claim of attorney-client privilege. The order was appealable via the Perlman doctrine, which generally […]
Continue reading....
In Fleming v. United States, the Eleventh Circuit became the fifth court of appeals to reject pure Bivens appeals. The court held that federal officials cannot immediately appeal the Bivens question without also appealing the denial of qualified immunity. Unlike some of the prior decisions, this one was unanimous. And it puts the government’s record […]
Continue reading....
Last month produced decisions involving a variety of appellate-jurisdiction issues. The Fifth Circuit decertified a § 1292(b) appeal. Judge Pillard of the D.C. Circuit explained that appellate “standing” does not require re-establishing standing in the court of appeals. The Sixth Circuit said that qualified immunity and an action’s merits are intertwined, which suggests (perhaps unintentionally) […]
Continue reading....
A new cert petition asks whether the denial of derivative sovereign immunity is immediately appealable via the collateral-order doctrine.
Continue reading....