Opinion ID: 8065934
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: [5,6] Before reaching the legal issues presented for review, it is the duty of an appellate court to determine whether it has jurisdiction over the matter before it. 5 Generally, an order of dismissal is a final, appealable order. 6 [7-10] Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1902(1)(a) (Cum. Supp. 2020), an order affecting a substantial right in an action, when such order in effect determines the action and prevents a judgment, is a final order. A substantial right is an essential legal right, which includes those legal rights that a party is entitled to enforce or defend. 7 A substantial right is affected if an order affects the subject matter of the litigation, such as diminishing a claim or defense that was available to an appellant before the order from which an appeal is taken. 8 An order that completely disposes of the subject matter of the litigation in an action or proceeding both is final and affects a substantial right because it conclusively determines a claim or defense. 9 Here, the district court’s March 2021 order of dismissal completely disposed of the subject matter of the litigation and, as such, was a final, appealable order over which we have jurisdiction. § 25-601 Having determined that we have jurisdiction over this appeal, we move to the merits of the case. Appellants argue that the district court erred in dismissing their case because, at the time they filed their voluntary dismissal, a final submission had occurred, which divested Appellants of their 5 Boyd v. Cook, 298 Neb. 819, 906 N.W.2d 31 (2018). 6 Id. 7 See, Big John’s Billiards v. State, 283 Neb. 496, 811 N.W.2d 205 (2012); State v. Vela, 272 Neb. 287, 721 N.W.2d 631 (2006). 8 Big John’s Billiards, supra note 7. 9 Id. -7- Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 312 Nebraska Reports SCHAAF V. SCHAAF Cite as 312 Neb. 1 statutory ability to voluntarily dismiss their case under § 25-601. We agree. [11-13] The ability of a plaintiff to dismiss his or her claim(s) without prejudice is codified in § 25-601 and Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-602 (Cum. Supp. 2020). Generally, under these statutes, a plaintiff has the right to dismiss an action without prejudice before final submission of the case, subject to compliance with conditions precedent as may be imposed by the court. 10 We have stated that the statutory right to voluntary dismissal under §§ 25-601 and 25-602 is not a matter of judicial grace or discretion, but neither is it absolute or without limitation. 11 After a final submission, dismissal without prejudice requires leave of court. 12 A final submission of an action contemplates 10 Beals v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 53 Neb. 601, 74 N.W. 54 (1898); Sharpless v. Giffen, 47 Neb. 146, 66 N.W. 285 (1896). See Holste v. Burlington Northern RR. Co., 256 Neb. 713, 730, 592 N.W.2d 894, 907 (1999) (holding plaintiff’s right to voluntary dismissal before final submission “is not absolute”); Horton v. State, 63 Neb. 34, 88 N.W. 146 (1901). See, also, Sheedy v. McMurtry, 44 Neb. 499, 502, 63 N.W. 21, 23 (1895) (explaining “the right of a plaintiff to dismiss at any time during the pendency of a cause, as a general proposition, must be qualified, and is not absolute in the sense that it takes the subject without the control of the court in which the cause is pending, so that it cannot, within its discretion, impose the condition of the payment of costs as obligatory and precedent to a dismissal of the action”). 11 Millard Gutter Co., supra note 3; Holste, supra note 10. 12 See Tuttle v. Wyman, 149 Neb. 769, 32 N.W.2d 742 (1948). See, e.g., Millard Gutter Co., supra note 3; Collection Specialists v. Vesely, 238 Neb. 181, 469 N.W.2d 549 (1991) (plaintiff loses statutory right to dismiss without prejudice after final submission, but court has discretion to allow such dismissal depending on facts and circumstances of case); Pettegrew v. Pettegrew, 128 Neb. 783, 260 N.W. 287 (1935) (same); Knaak v. Brown, 115 Neb. 260, 212 N.W. 431 (1927) (holding dismissal of action after final submission must be by leave of court and cannot be accomplished by mere act of plaintiff alone); Nelson v. Omaha & C. B. Street R. Co., 93 Neb. 154, 139 N.W. 860 (1913); Bee Building Co. v. Dalton, 68 Neb. 38, 93 N.W. 930 (1903) (plaintiff loses right to voluntarily dismiss action without prejudice after there has been final submission, but court has discretion to permit dismissal). -8- Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 312 Nebraska Reports SCHAAF V. SCHAAF Cite as 312 Neb. 1 submission upon both law and facts, and it only exists when nothing remains to be done to render it complete. 13 In support of their argument that a ruling on a motion for summary judgment is a final submission which deprives a party from being able to voluntarily dismiss their case, Appellants direct us to our recent decision in Millard Gutter Co. v. American Family Ins. Co. 14 In Millard Gutter Co., the defendant prevailed on summary judgment regarding three of the plaintiff’s four claims. Then, on the morning of trial, the plaintiff filed a voluntary dismissal under § 25-601. The voluntary dismissal was not styled as a motion, but the district court held a hearing to determine the effect of the filing. Ultimately, the court entered a judgment that dismissed without prejudice the claim set for trial, made final the prior summary judgments entered in favor of the defendant, and taxed certain costs to the plaintiff. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that once it filed the voluntary dismissal, the court’s jurisdiction over the case terminated and the court lacked the ability to tax costs. The district court rejected the plaintiff’s argument, finding that there was a final submission that precluded voluntary dismissal under § 25-601 and that there was a setoff that precluded voluntary dismissal under § 25-602. [14] On appeal, we held in Millard Gutter Co. that a summary judgment motion can be a final submission that will prevent voluntary dismissal under § 25-601. We also found that due to the granting of the appellee’s motion for partial summary judgment, there was a final submission regarding some, but not all, of the appellant’s claims in the case. As such, because the summary judgments in favor of the appellee were the product of final submissions that had neither been revised nor set aside, we concluded that the appellant lacked the statutory authority under § 25-601 to voluntarily dismiss those claims. 13 See, Koll v. Stanton-Pilger Drainage Dist., 207 Neb. 425, 299 N.W.2d 435 (1980); Plattsmouth Loan & Bldg. Ass’n v. Sedlak, 128 Neb. 509, 259 N.W. 367 (1935). 14 Millard Gutter Co., supra note 3. -9- Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 312 Nebraska Reports SCHAAF V. SCHAAF Cite as 312 Neb. 1 As described by one commentator, our holding in Millard Gutter Co. was the correct conclusion because a “plaintiff should not be allowed to dismiss claims without prejudice after the claims have been rejected. Otherwise, the plaintiff could avoid an adverse decision on one or more claims by simply dismissing those claims without prejudice and reasserting them in a new action.” 15 Additionally, Nebraska is far from alone in treating summary judgments as final submissions that can limit a plaintiff’s statutory right to voluntarily dismiss without prejudice. 16 Likewise, here, the district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Appellees on their claim of fraud in the inducement. Therefore, under the reasoning set forth in Millard Gutter Co., there was a final submission regarding one, but not all, of Appellants’ claims. Accordingly, because the partial summary judgment in favor of Appellees was the product of a final submission that had neither been revised nor set aside, Appellants had no statutory right under § 25-601 to voluntarily 15 See, John P. Lenich, Nebraska Civil Procedure § 34:4 at 1479 (2022). 16 See, e.g., Wright v. Eddinger, 320 Ark. 151, 894 S.W.2d 937 (1995) (holding that summary judgment is final submission, but court retains discretion to grant voluntary dismissal without prejudice); Mary Morgan, Inc. v. Melzark, 49 Cal. App. 4th 765, 57 Cal. Rptr. 2d 4 (1996) (holding voluntary dismissal without prejudice not permitted as matter of right after summary judgment hearing has commenced); Brandt v. Joseph F. Gordon Architect, Inc., 998 P.2d 587 (Okla. 1999) (holding that summary judgment is final submission of claim for purposes of voluntary dismissal statute and forecloses plaintiff’s unfettered right to dismiss claim without prejudice); Bio-Medical Applications, Inc. v. Coston, 272 Va. 489, 634 S.E.2d 349 (2006) (finding voluntary dismissal was untimely when made after court announced ruling on defendant’s motion for summary judgment; at that point, case had been submitted to court for decision); Beritich v. Starlet Corporation, 69 Wash. 2d 454, 458, 418 P.2d 762, 764 (1966) (holding plaintiff loses right to voluntarily dismiss without prejudice after motion for summary judgment has been ruled upon, otherwise “[t]he summary judgment procedure, at least from the defendant’s viewpoint, would become a virtual nullity if a plaintiff can ‘exit stage left’ upon hearing an adverse oral decision of the trial judge on the summary judgment motion”). - 10 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 312 Nebraska Reports SCHAAF V. SCHAAF Cite as 312 Neb. 1 dismiss that claim without prejudice. Consequently, the district court’s authority to make further rulings in the case was unaffected by the filing of the voluntary dismissal. The dissent of our learned colleague recognizes that a court has discretion when considering whether to refuse to dismiss a case and must consider the protection of any rights which have accrued to the defendant. 17 The dissent goes on to note that Appellees took no steps to seek the protection of their rights and that therefore, Appellants’ dismissal should have been absolute. However, the very fact that Appellees could have taken steps to protect their rights and the court could have entered an order preserving a counterclaim or the restitution of property of which a party has been deprived or ordering the recovery of Appellants’ costs makes it clear that a plaintiff’s right to dismiss after a final submission is not absolute. For the sake of completeness, we note that our opinion should not be construed as holding that a final submission on one claim forecloses a plaintiff from voluntarily dismissing other claims which have not yet been finally submitted. But in this case, Appellants attempted to do much more than that; they filed a voluntary dismissal purporting to dismiss the entire action without prejudice, which necessarily included the fraud claim which had been finally submitted and decided on summary judgment. While the final submission on the fraud claim did not affect whether Appellants could voluntarily dismiss their undue influence claims, it did affect whether they could voluntarily dismiss the entire action pursuant to § 25-601. In other words, after one of several claims has been finally submitted, the plaintiff retains the right under § 25-601 to voluntarily dismiss other claims which have not yet been finally submitted, but they lose the statutory right to voluntarily dismiss the entire action. 17 See Kansas Bankers Surety Co. v. Halford, 263 Neb. 971, 644 N.W.2d 865 (2002). - 11 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 312 Nebraska Reports SCHAAF V. SCHAAF Cite as 312 Neb. 1 § 25-602 [15] Appellants also argue that, pursuant to § 25-602, they did not have a statutory right to dismiss their case because Appellees included a counterclaim in their amended answer. Under § 25-602, a plaintiff loses the right to voluntarily dismiss a claim without prejudice when a counterclaim or setoff has been filed by the opposing party. Because we have already determined that there was a final submission in this case that divested Appellants of their statutory right to dismissal under § 25-601, we do not find it necessary to discuss whether a counterclaim or setoff had been filed. An appellate court is not obligated to engage in an analysis that is not needed to adjudicate the case and controversy before it. 18 Reinstatement Lastly, we consider Appellants’ argument that the trial court had statutory authority to reinstate the case after the voluntary dismissal was filed. [16,17] Generally, an order of dismissal or dismissal by operation of law divests a court of jurisdiction to take any further action in the matter. 19 Moreover, when a case is voluntarily dismissed by a party, the controversy between the parties upon which a trial court may act ends. 20 [18] But, in civil cases, a court of general jurisdiction has inherent power to vacate or modify its own judgment at any time during the term in which the court issued it. 21 Additionally, under § 25-2001(1), this inherent power allows a court to “vacate or modify its judgments or orders . . . after the end of the term, upon the same grounds, upon a motion filed within six months after the entry of the judgment or order.” A 18 Nebraska Republican Party v. Shively, 311 Neb. 160, 971 N.W.2d 128 (2022). 19 Molczyk v. Molczyk, 285 Neb. 96, 825 N.W.2d 435 (2013). 20 See Smith v. Lincoln Meadows Homeowners Assn., 267 Neb. 849, 678 N.W.2d 726 (2004). 21 Molczyk, supra note 19. - 12 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 312 Nebraska Reports SCHAAF V. SCHAAF Cite as 312 Neb. 1 court treats a motion to reinstate a case after an order of dismissal as a motion to vacate the order, and a court generally has jurisdiction over a motion to vacate an order of dismissal and reinstate a case. 22 Here, we have already determined that because Appellants did not have a statutory right to dismissal under § 25-601, the district court’s authority to make further rulings in the case was unaffected by the filing of the voluntary dismissal. Additionally, Appellants timely filed their motion to reinstate under § 25-2001(1). Moreover, although the district court “granted” Appellants’ motion to dismiss, the court also had jurisdiction over the motion to reinstate and properly exercised its discretion in vacating the dismissal and reinstating the case. 23 Thus, its subsequent order reinstating the case was not a nullity, and the district court erred in determining that the case “[stood] dismissed pursuant to [Appellants’] voluntary dismissal.”