“This result could have been avoided by reading the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” So the Court observed as to the absence of appellate jurisdiction after parties attempted to voluntarily dismiss only those claims remaining after the district court’s entry of partial summary judgment. CMYK Ents., Inc. v. Advanced Print Techs., LLC, 2025 WL 2626837 (11th Cir. Sept. 12, 2025).
The plaintiff’s amended complaint included multiple claims against various combinations of four defendants, and three of the defendants filed multiple counterclaims. After dismissal of the fourth defendant, the plaintiff and the remaining three defendants filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted each of the defendants’ motions as to some claims but not others.
After the district court denied reconsideration of its summary judgment order, the parties filed a “Consent Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of Fewer than All Claims,” purportedly under Rule 41(a)(2), seeking dismissal without prejudice of the counts as to which the district court had denied summary judgment. The district court granted the motion. The parties later notified the district court of their settlement, and the district court dismissed all the claims between them with prejudice.
The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal challenging the district court’s order on summary judgment and its denial of the motion for reconsideration. The Eleventh Circuit was without jurisdiction to hear the appeal, however, because the summary judgment order was not a “final decision” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
The court’s analysis, written by Judge Tjoflat, began with Rule 54(b)’s provision that—absent a specific determination that “there is no just reason for delay,” which had never been made in the case—“any order . . . that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the action as to any of the claims or parties.” Accordingly, “a partial summary judgment decision—no matter how conclusive it appears—does not end the action as to any of the claims.”
Rule 41, in turn, provides for voluntary dismissal of “an action.” While the Eleventh Circuit has recognized that a plaintiff may under Rule 41 voluntarily dismiss one of multiple defendants in its entirety, In re Esteva, 60 F.4th 664, 667 (11th Cir. 2023), that was not the situation presented in CMYK. Instead, the parties sought to dismiss some of the claims against each party under Rule 41. That relief was unauthorized by Rule 41, however, and the motion was therefore “invalid upon filing.” As a result, “the claims [the motion] purported to dismiss remain pending in the District Court.”
The court noted that the Federal Rules provide several options the parties could have used to accomplish their desired result: they could have sought a certification that there was “no just reason for delay,” they could have amended their pleadings pursuant to Rule 15, or they might have sought severance under Rule 21. As it is, however, there is no final judgment and no appellate jurisdiction.