Court Opinion

ID: 9511127
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:02:03.076014+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:52.313247
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE COTTER
dissents:
¶29 I respectfully dissent. I believe the Court has given too short a shrift to the provisions of Rule 41(a)(1), in its zeal to apply our holding in First Call to the facts presented here.
¶30 The Court concludes that, under First Call, a dismissal under Rule 41(e) must be given res judicata effect. I absolutely agree. In First Call, the defendant moved to dismiss plaintiffs cause of action under Rule 41(e), for the failure of the plaintiff to serve the summons within three years as required by the rule. We said: “We hold that dismissals under Rule 41(e), M.R.Civ.P., are dismissals with prejudice and must be given res judicata effect.” First Call, 271 Mont. at 428.
¶31 The problem is that, here, dismissal was accomplished not under Rule 41(e), but under Rule 41(a), which permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action “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. ... Unless otherwise stated in the notice of dismissal or stipulation, the dismissal is without prejudice.” Rich followed this rule by dismissing her complaint before any responsive pleading was filed, and as the rule allows such to be accomplished “at any time,” her dismissal was neither untimely nor impermissible. Although the Court reads into Rule 41(a)(1) the implication that its provisions apply only in those instances where service of the summons has been accomplished (¶ 23), the rule contains no such qualification. It is not the office of this Court to insert into a statute that which has been omitted. Section 1-2-101, MCA.
¶32 Because Rich was entitled to invoke the provisions of Rule 41(a)( 1) to dismiss her complaint without prejudice, and because her actions in *347doing so did not run afoul of the provisions of that rule, I would conclude that her Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal was not on the merits and does not carry res judicata effect. I would therefore answer the certified question in the negative.
JUSTICES REGNIER and LEAPHART join in the foregoing dissent.