Also known as: FRCP 41 · Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 · Rule 41
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A procedural rule authorizing voluntary dismissal of civil actions by the plaintiff and involuntary dismissal for failure to prosecute or comply with court orders. A dismissal under the rule operates as an adjudication on the merits unless the court specifies otherwise or the dismissal rests on lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, or failure to join a required party.
Caleb sued Oceanic Vessels in state court for unpaid commissions. The court dismissed the action as time-barred. Caleb refiled the identical claims in federal admiralty court. The federal court must consult state preclusion law to decide whether the prior dismissal bars the new suit.
Francesca Fowler filed a personal injury suit against Fulton Shipping. She attempted service within the state period but failed to complete it properly. Fulton moved to dismiss for untimely service. The court evaluated whether the attempt tolled the limitations period under state commencement rules.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Felicia Fuentes brought a class action against Fidelity Trust alleging improper fees. The defendant sought dismissal under a state procedural rule limiting class claims. The court assessed whether the federal rule on class actions displaced the state limitation.
Frederick Ferguson sued Foster Forge for breach of contract. During trial Ferguson destroyed relevant documents. The court imposed sanctions including dismissal of the action. The order treated the dismissal as an adjudication on the merits.
Floyd Franklin sued Blue Ridge Rural Electrical Cooperative for negligence. The defendant raised an immunity defense under state law. The court submitted the factual predicate of the defense to the jury rather than deciding it as a matter of law.
Fernando Farrell sued United States Gypsum for antitrust violations. After a bench trial the court made findings on market effects and competitive injury. The appellate court reviewed those findings under the clearly erroneous standard.
No. The rule states that most involuntary dismissals operate as adjudications on the merits unless the court orders otherwise or an exception applies. That language governs the effect of the dismissal within the federal system but does not itself fix the claim-preclusive effect of the judgment when invoked in another court.
Federal common law borrows the preclusion law of the state whose statute of limitations the federal court applied. A later court therefore looks to that state's law to decide whether a limitations dismissal counts as a judgment on the merits for claim-preclusion purposes.
The plaintiff must demonstrate diligent prosecution or a reasonable excuse for noncompliance with court orders. Repeated failure to meet deadlines, appear at conferences, or respond to discovery after warnings typically justifies dismissal with prejudice as an adjudication on the merits.
…motion for involuntary dismissal of an action after the plaintiff has completed the presentation of his evidence. Under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in such case 'the defendant, without waiving his right to offer evidence in the event the motion is not granted, may move for dismissal on the…