Opinion ID: 2360416
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Finality Construed Prospectively

Text: The purpose of Rule 15(aaa) was to curtail the number of times that the Court of Chancery was required to adjudicate multiple motions to dismiss the same action. Rule 15(aaa) was written to accomplish that objective by requiring plaintiffs, when confronted with a motion to dismiss pursuant to any of Ch. Ct. R. 12(b)(6), (c) or 23.1, to elect to either: stand on the complaint and answer the motion; or, to amend or seek leave to amend the complaint before the response to the motion was due. Rule 15(aaa) makes this election extremely significant by providing that, if a plaintiff chooses to file an answering brief in opposition to a motion to dismiss rather than amend the complaint, any subsequent dismissal pursuant to the motion is with prejudice, unless the court finds for good cause that dismissal with prejudice would not be just under all the circumstances. [13] Contrary to the Third Circuit's holding in Borelli, it appears every other federal appellate court has rejected the view that a dismissal without prejudice implicitly means with leave to amend. [14] We are persuaded by the rationale of the majority view. We hold that a final judgment results, for purposes of appeal in Delaware, whenever a complaint is dismissed without prejudice unless the plaintiff is expressly granted leave to amend within a time certain. [15] Accordingly, we hold that dismissals with and without prejudice are equally appealable as final judgments. [16] The phrase without prejudice in an order of dismissal by a Delaware judge is not to be construed as an implicit invitation to file an amended complaint. Instead, the phrase without prejudice will mean only that the otherwise final judgment does not operate as a res judicata bar to preclude a subsequent lawsuit on the same cause of action. [17] If leave to amend a complaint is contemplated by a Delaware judge following a dismissal without prejudice, there must be an express statement to that effect in the order, in which case the order will be an interlocutory decree. Our holdings are intended to avoid future confusion and provide certainty regarding the ability to file an amendment, the finality of a judgment of dismissal without prejudice, and the time in which to file an appeal.