Dropping one claim would no longer mean dropping the whole case.

A settled count and an unopposed dismissal left an appeal with no final judgment to review. In Rosell v. VMSB, LLC, 67 F.4th 1141 (11th Cir. 2023), restaurant employees brought three counts under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Florida law over an employer's treatment of a service charge. A magistrate judge recommended partial summary judgment for the employer on two minimum-wage counts. While that recommendation was pending, the parties settled the remaining federal overtime count, and the plaintiffs moved unopposed to dismiss it.

The Eleventh Circuit held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) permitted dismissal only of an entire action, not a single count. The attempted dismissal therefore did not produce a final judgment, and the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction.

A proposed amendment would write dismissal of one or more claims into the text of Rule 41(a) itself. It has cleared the Standing Committee and is not in effect. The current rule governs every dismissal filed now.

The proposed text would expressly cover one or more claims

The amendment would retitle Rule 41 from "Dismissal of Actions" to "Dismissal of Actions or Claims."

Current Rule 41(a)(1)(A) allows a plaintiff, subject to specified rules and applicable federal statutes, to dismiss an action without a court order in either of two ways. The plaintiff may file a notice before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff may instead file a stipulation signed by all parties who have appeared.

The proposed text would allow a plaintiff to dismiss "its action or one or more of its claims" without a court order. The two filing methods, notice and stipulation, would remain.

Rule 41(a)(2), which governs dismissal by court order, would change in parallel. An action or one or more claims could be dismissed at a plaintiff's request by court order, on terms the court considers proper.

The counterclaim proviso would also refer to an "action, claim, or claims." If a defendant pleaded a counterclaim before receiving the motion to dismiss, dismissal over the defendant's objection would remain available only if the counterclaim could stay pending for independent adjudication.

Language unchanged since 1938 has produced failed partial dismissals

The committee note says the wording suggesting that Rule 41 reaches only an entire case has remained unchanged since the rule's 1938 promulgation. In the intervening years, multi-claim and multi-party cases became more typical. Courts also came to emphasize simplifying cases, facilitating settlement, and narrowing issues during pretrial proceedings.

Some courts interpreted the existing language as allowing dismissal only of all claims against all defendants, or all claims against one or more defendants. The note describes express authority to dismiss individual claims as consistent with "widespread practice" and the policy of narrowing issues before trial.

The Eleventh Circuit applied the stricter reading in Perry v. Schumacher Group of Louisiana, 891 F.3d 954 (11th Cir. 2018). The plaintiff and defendant filed a joint stipulation purporting to dismiss a single remaining claim under Rule 41(a)(1), then asked the district court to enter final judgment on the other claims. The court held that Rule 41(a)(1)(A) was unavailable for anything short of the entire action.

Because the stipulation was invalid, it did not divest the district court of jurisdiction. The Eleventh Circuit identified amendment under Rule 15 as the method for dropping a particular claim and Rule 54(b) certification as the route to an immediate appeal through a partial judgment.

The Ninth Circuit took the same view of individual claims in Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. United States Forest Service, 403 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2005). It read Rule 41(a) as governing entire actions and pointed to Rule 15 for withdrawal of an individual claim. The Ninth Circuit has separately construed Rule 41(a)(1) to permit dismissal of all claims against one defendant in a multi-defendant case when all parties who have appeared stipulate.

Together, Perry, Rosell and Hells Canyon show the procedural consequence of the current wording. An attempted dismissal of one count under Rule 41 can be ineffective, and that failure can prevent the resulting order from becoming a final, appealable judgment.

Former parties would no longer have to sign a stipulation

The amendment makes a second textual change, to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). A stipulation would need signatures from all parties who have appeared "and remain in the action."

The committee note says some courts have required signatures from every party that ever appeared, including parties that dismissed all their claims or had all claims against them dismissed. It calls that requirement "overly burdensome" and an unnecessary obstacle to narrowing a case.

Under the proposed language, signatures from parties currently litigating claims would provide notice to those actively involved. A party that had left the action would not have to sign a later stipulation dismissing other claims.

The notice cutoff, statutory carve-outs and prejudice default would remain

The amendment would not alter the limitations at the beginning of Rule 41(a)(1)(A). Dismissals would remain subject to Rules 23(e), 23.1(c), 23.2 and 66, as well as any applicable federal statute.

The deadline for a unilateral notice would also remain. A plaintiff could use a notice only before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. After that point, dismissal without a court order would require a qualifying stipulation.

The counterclaim protection in Rule 41(a)(2) would continue to apply, with added references to a claim or claims. The default rule would also remain: a dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) is without prejudice unless the court's order states otherwise.

Rule 41(d) would not change. That provision permits a court to order a plaintiff who previously dismissed an action to pay the costs of the earlier action and to stay the new action. The committee note states that Rule 41(d) remains limited to a prior dismissal of an entire action. Dismissal of one or more claims under the proposed language would not expand its operation.

December 1, 2027 is the earliest potential effective date

The proposal appears in the Report of the Judicial Conference Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, Agenda E-19, revised August 27, 2026, and published by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.

The Advisory Committee on Civil Rules met April 14, 2026, and recommended final approval of amendments to Rules 7.1, 26, 41(a), 45(b), 45(c) and 81. Its chair is Judge Sarah S. Vance of the Eastern District of Louisiana. Professor Richard L. Marcus serves as Reporter, and Professor Andrew Bradt as Associate Reporter.

The Standing Committee met June 3 and 4, 2026. After minor clarifying revisions to the proposals for Rules 26 and 45(b), it unanimously approved the Advisory Committee's recommendations. The report records revisions to those two proposals only.

The Standing Committee now recommends that the Judicial Conference approve the amendments and transmit them to the Supreme Court with a recommendation for adoption and transmission to Congress. The Judicial Conference has not yet approved the Rule 41 amendment, and neither the Supreme Court nor Congress has acted.

The Administrative Office lists December 1, 2027 as the potential effective date. It says a federal rule amendment generally takes about three years, moving from advisory committee review and public comment to the Standing Committee and Judicial Conference, then to the Supreme Court and Congress. If the Rule 41 amendment completes that ordinary sequence, December 1, 2027 is its earliest effective date.

Three consequences for practicing attorneys

The proposed text raises three immediate procedural consequences for attorneys handling partial settlements, claim withdrawals and stipulations while the existing rule remains controlling.