Opinion ID: 781855
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Characterizing the Dismissal

Text: 18 The Letherers and Alger disagree about how to characterize Loewen's dismissal. On the one hand, the Letherers contend that Loewen was dismissed pursuant to Rule 21, 1 which provides that [p]arties may be dropped ... by order of the court on motion of any party or of its own initiative at any stage of the action and on such terms as are just. Fed.R.Civ.P. 21. On the other hand, Alger argues that Loewen was voluntarily dismissed by notice, stipulation, or court order. Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a). Pursuant to Rule 41, an action may be dismissed by the plaintiff without order of court (i) by filing a notice of dismissal at any time before service by the adverse party of an answer or of a motion for summary judgment, whichever first occurs, or (ii) by filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared in the action. Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1). Rule 41 also provides that, in other circumstances, an action shall not be dismissed at the plaintiff's instance save upon order of the court and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper. Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(2). 19 Although Alger and Loewen both contend that Rule 41 provides an appropriate basis for dismissal in this case, Rule 41 is confined to the Dismissal of Actions. As this court noted in Philip Carey Manufacturing Co. v. Taylor, 286 F.2d 782 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 366 U.S. 948, 81 S.Ct. 1903, 6 L.Ed.2d 1242 (1961), 20 ... Rule 41(a)(1) provides for the voluntary dismissal of an `action' not a `claim'; the word `action' as used in the Rules denotes the entire controversy, whereas `claim' refers to what has traditionally been termed `cause of action.' Rule 21 provides that `Parties may be dropped or added by order of the court on motion   ' and we think that this rule is the one under which any action to eliminate ... a party should be taken. 21 Id. at 785 (quoting Harvey Aluminum, Inc. v. American Cyanamid Co., 203 F.2d 105, 108 (2d Cir.1953), cert. denied, 345 U.S. 964, 73 S.Ct. 949, 97 L.Ed. 1383 (1953)). 2 The Sixth Circuit's interpretation of Rule 41 is unclear, however, because this court subsequently affirmed a district court's Rule 41 dismissal of all claims against one of two defendants in an action, without discussing why Rule 41 was the appropriate avenue for dismissal. Banque de Depots v. Nat'l Bank of Detroit, 491 F.2d 753, 757 (6th Cir.1974). We need not decide the scope of Rule 41 in this instance, however. Because the Letherers did not dismiss the entire action, but rather sought to dismiss only one party from the action, we will assume that the district court dropped Loewen as a party pursuant to Rule 21.