No Shortcuts to Finality: Rule 41(a) Cannot Cure the Lack of Rule 54(b) Certification for Partial Summary Judgment

No Shortcuts to Finality: Rule 41(a) Cannot Cure the Lack of Rule 54(b) Certification for Partial Summary Judgment

Introduction

In CMYK Enterprises, Inc. v. Advanced Print Technologies, LLC, the Eleventh Circuit (per Judge Tjoflat, joined by Judges Grant and Lagoa) dismissed an appeal for lack of jurisdiction and, in doing so, issued a published, clarifying statement on the interplay between Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(a) and 54(b). The court held that a party cannot use Rule 41(a) to voluntarily dismiss “fewer than all claims” after a partial summary judgment ruling unless the district court has first entered a proper Rule 54(b) certification. Without that certification, the partial summary judgment remains interlocutory; any Rule 41(a) dismissal that does not dispose of the “entire action” is “invalid upon filing,” leaving claims still pending in the district court and depriving the court of appeals of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

The parties were CMYK Enterprises, Inc. (plaintiff/counter-defendant/appellant) and, on the defense side, Advanced Print Technologies, LLC (APT), Frank Fruciano (together, defendants/counter-claimants/appellees), AccessGroup International, LLC (defendant/counter-claimant/appellee), and Clyde B. Tillman (defendant). The appeal arose from the Northern District of Georgia (No. 1:19-cv-01132-LMM). The Eleventh Circuit decided the case on the Non-Argument Calendar and issued a published opinion on September 12, 2025 (No. 24-13766).

The core issue: Can parties, after winning or losing a partial summary judgment that has not been certified under Rule 54(b), “end” the rest of the case by voluntarily dismissing only the remaining claims under Rule 41(a)? The court’s answer is categorical: No. Rule 41(a) dismisses an action, not individual claims; Rule 54(b) governs finality when fewer than all claims are adjudicated. Attempting to use Rule 41(a) to create appealable finality when Rule 54(b) certification is absent is ineffective.

Summary of the Opinion

The Eleventh Circuit dismissed CMYK’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the case had never reached a final decision within the meaning of § 1291. The district court granted summary judgment on some, but not all, claims and did not certify the partial judgment under Rule 54(b). The parties then filed a “Consent Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of Fewer Than All Claims” under Rule 41(a)(2), dropping some remaining claims and counterclaims without touching others they assumed had been finally resolved by summary judgment. The Eleventh Circuit explained that:

  • Absent a Rule 54(b) certification, a partial summary judgment decision “does not end the action as to any of the claims” and remains subject to revision.
  • Rule 41(a) authorizes the voluntary dismissal only of an “action,” not of individual claims within an action; partial dismissals of claims are “invalid upon filing.”
  • Because claims remained pending in the district court, there was no final, appealable decision under § 1291, and the court lacked appellate jurisdiction.

The court emphasized straight textual reasoning from the rules, highlighted available correct procedural tools (Rule 15 amendment, Rule 54(b) certification, or Rule 21 severance), and admonished that reading the Federal Rules would have avoided the jurisdictional misstep.

Procedural Background (Streamlined)

  • CMYK sued APT, Fruciano, AccessGroup, and Tillman, bringing breach of contract claims and a fraud claim; defendants counterclaimed.
  • January 5, 2022: The district court granted judgment on the pleadings on CMYK’s fraud count (Count II), removing Tillman.
  • June 14, 2023: The district court:
    • Denied CMYK’s summary judgment motion;
    • Granted partial summary judgment to AccessGroup on CMYK’s Count I (breach of contract) and denied the rest;
    • Granted APT and Fruciano’s motion as to CMYK’s Count III (breach of contract) and as to APT/Fruciano’s Counterclaim II (breach of contract).
    No Rule 54(b) certification and no Rule 58 separate judgment was entered.
  • February 2024: Motions for reconsideration denied.
  • September 30, 2024: Parties filed a “Consent Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of Fewer Than All Claims” under Rule 41(a)(2), dropping CMYK’s attorneys’ fees claim (Count IV) against APT/Fruciano and five APT/Fruciano counterclaims (I, III, IV, V, and VI). The district court granted the motion the same day.
  • October 29, 2024: CMYK and AccessGroup settled; the district court dismissed claims between them with prejudice.
  • October 30, 2024: CMYK noticed an appeal from the summary judgment order and denial of reconsideration.

Analysis

Precedents and Authorities Cited, and How They Shaped the Decision

  • Rule 54(b) bedrock cases:
    • Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Electric Co., 446 U.S. 1 (1980), and Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 351 U.S. 427 (1956): establish the two-step test for Rule 54(b) certification—(1) the decision must be a final judgment on a cognizable claim; and (2) the court must expressly determine there is no just reason for delay, acting as a “dispatcher.”
    • Lloyd Noland Foundation, Inc. v. Tenet Health Care Corp., 483 F.3d 773 (11th Cir. 2007): synthesizes the two-step Curtiss-Wright framework for Rule 54(b) in this circuit.
    • Mullins v. Nickel Plate Mining Co., 691 F.2d 971 (11th Cir. 1982): absent Rule 54(b) certification, a determination on fewer than all claims is not final.
    • Chapman v. Dunn, 129 F.4th 1307 (11th Cir. 2025): recent articulation of the “no just reason for delay” standard and the discretion required.
  • Rule 41(a) line of authority (action vs. claims):
    • Rosell v. VMSB, LLC, 67 F.4th 1141 (11th Cir. 2023): Rule 41(a) authorizes dismissal of an “action,” not individual claims; partial claim dismissals are invalid.
    • In re Esteva, 60 F.4th 664 (11th Cir. 2023): a voluntary dismissal purporting to dismiss a single claim is “invalid upon filing,” even if other claims have been resolved; confirms the limited exception allowing dismissal of an entire defendant.
    • Perry v. Schumacher Group of Louisiana, 891 F.3d 954 (11th Cir. 2018): reinforces that Rule 41(a) cannot be used to jettison part of a case; points to Rule 54(b) for partial finality.
    • State Treasurer of State of Michigan v. Barry, 168 F.3d 8 (11th Cir. 1999): same textual reading—Rule 41 speaks in terms of an action, not a claim.
    • Weinstein v. 440 Corp., — F.4th —, 2025 WL 2092034 (11th Cir. July 25, 2025): confirms the longstanding rule; also recognizes dismissal of a single plaintiff in a multi-plaintiff case if all that plaintiff’s claims are dismissed.
  • Alternative, correct procedural mechanisms:
    • Rule 15(a)(2) (amendments): Klay v. United Healthgroup, Inc., 376 F.3d 1092 (11th Cir. 2004), and Ryan v. Occidental Petroleum Corp., 577 F.2d 298 (5th Cir. 1978): the proper way to drop some claims is to amend the pleading, not to seek a Rule 41(a) partial dismissal.
    • Rule 21 (severance): Corley v. Long-Lewis, Inc., 965 F.3d 1222, 1237 (11th Cir. 2020) (Pryor, C.J., concurring): severance creates a new, discrete suit that can yield its own final judgment.
  • Appellate jurisdiction principles:
    • 28 U.S.C. § 1291 final-decision rule: Callahan v. United Network for Organ Sharing, 17 F.4th 1356 (11th Cir. 2021) (finality means nothing left but execution of judgment).
    • Exceptions inapplicable here: Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949) (collateral order doctrine); 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (interlocutory appeals).
    • Threshold jurisdiction duty: Kokkonen v. Guardian Life, 511 U.S. 375 (1994); Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 506 (1869); Acheron Capital, Ltd. v. Mukamal, 22 F.4th 979 (11th Cir. 2022); University of South Alabama v. American Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405 (11th Cir. 1999).

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning is strictly textual and structural:

  • Rule 54(b) unequivocally provides that in multi-claim or multi-party cases, orders adjudicating fewer than all claims “do not end the action as to any of the claims or parties,” unless the court expressly determines that there is “no just reason for delay” and directs entry of judgment. Without that certification, partial summary judgment is interlocutory and revisable.
  • Rule 41(a) by its terms authorizes voluntary dismissal of an “action.” It does not authorize dismissal of a subset of claims. A partial dismissal under Rule 41(a) is ineffectual, i.e., “invalid upon filing,” except in narrow situations where the “action” is defined by all claims against a particular defendant (or by all claims of a particular plaintiff)—in which case dismissing that party in its entirety aligns with the text.
  • Read together, the rules mean: If a court has not certified a partial summary judgment ruling under Rule 54(b), the adjudicated claims remain part of the case. A subsequent Rule 41(a) motion that dismisses only some of the remaining claims does not terminate the “entire action,” so it has no legal effect. Claims remain pending; there is no final decision under § 1291; appellate jurisdiction is absent.

The court added a practical set of “what you should have done” alternatives:

  • Use Rule 15 to amend the pleadings and withdraw particular claims.
  • Move for Rule 54(b) certification (and then ensure Rule 58 separate-document entry of judgment) to create an appealable final judgment as to adjudicated claims where appropriate.
  • Seek severance under Rule 21 so that the severed claims proceed as a separate action capable of reaching its own final judgment.

The panel expressly took no position on whether this case’s partial summary judgment would have merited Rule 54(b) certification; it cited 54(b) only to teach the correct route to partial finality.

Impact and Practical Consequences

This opinion, though grounded in existing Eleventh Circuit law, is significant because it squarely addresses a recurring endgame problem: parties try to manufacture finality for appeal by stipulating away “remaining” claims with a Rule 41(a) motion after partial summary judgment. The court’s rule is bright-line and enforceable:

  • Within the Eleventh Circuit (Alabama, Florida, Georgia), counsel cannot use Rule 41(a) to dismiss individual claims in a multi-claim suit in order to appeal a partial summary judgment. Doing so is a nullity.
  • Failure to obtain Rule 54(b) certification (or to resolve all claims) before noticing an appeal risks dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, lost time, and added expense.
  • District courts and clerks can rely on this published decision to reject or correct improper Rule 41(a) practice aimed at individual claims and to direct parties toward Rule 15 amendments, Rule 21 severance, or Rule 54(b) motions.
  • Settlement structuring must account for this rule: where some parties settle and others do not, partial summary judgment orders are not appealable unless properly certified or unless all claims are otherwise brought to final judgment.
  • Cross-circuit counsel should note that the Eleventh Circuit’s approach is textually strict. Some other circuits have allowed more flexibility in using Rule 41(a) to dismiss less than the entire action; that flexibility does not exist here.

Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Final decision (28 U.S.C. § 1291): An appeal as of right exists only when the district court has resolved all claims against all parties, leaving nothing but execution of judgment. If any claim remains pending, there is usually no appealable final decision.
  • Partial summary judgment: A court’s ruling that resolves fewer than all claims. Unless the court uses Rule 54(b), such a ruling is not final and can be revised at any time before final judgment on all claims.
  • Rule 54(b) certification: In multi-claim or multi-party cases, a district court can make a partial judgment final by expressly finding there is “no just reason for delay” and directing entry of judgment. That converts the partial ruling into an appealable final judgment for those specific claims/parties.
  • Rule 41(a) voluntary dismissal: This rule permits a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss an “action” by notice or court order. It does not authorize dismissal of individual claims within an action (with limited party-based exceptions). A Rule 41(a) motion that dismisses fewer than all claims is therefore ineffective in the Eleventh Circuit.
  • Rule 15 amendments: The proper rule for withdrawing or dropping individual claims from a complaint or counterclaim. Use this to streamline the pleadings without attempting a Rule 41(a) partial claim dismissal.
  • Rule 21 severance: Allows a court to sever claims so they become a separate action. The severed action can proceed to its own final judgment and be appealed independently.
  • Rule 58 separate-document requirement: Even when a decision is final (including via Rule 54(b)), the district court must enter judgment on a separate document. This technical step matters for finality and appeal deadlines.

Practical Checklists

To Appeal a Partial Summary Judgment in a Multi-Claim/Multi-Party Case

  • Ask: Are all claims against all parties resolved? If yes, ensure Rule 58 separate judgment is entered; then notice appeal.
  • If no:
    • Consider moving for Rule 54(b) certification (explain why there is “no just reason for delay” and address judicial administrative interests).
    • Alternatively, seek severance under Rule 21 to carve out a discrete action that can go to final judgment.
    • Do not use Rule 41(a) to dismiss individual claims hoping to create finality. In the Eleventh Circuit, that is invalid upon filing.
    • If you wish to eliminate claims to narrow the case, amend under Rule 15 (with consent or leave of court), rather than filing a Rule 41(a) partial dismissal.

When Settling with Some Parties But Not Others

  • Dismiss all claims against the settling party or parties (this fits the “entire action” as to that party), or stipulate to judgment; ensure Rule 58 entry.
  • For non-settling parties, address all remaining claims through adjudication, amendment (Rule 15), severance (Rule 21), or await complete resolution before appealing.
  • If you need immediate appellate review of a partial adjudication involving non-settling parties, move for Rule 54(b) certification.

Conclusion

CMYK Enterprises v. Advanced Print Technologies is an important, published reminder that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are designed to prevent piecemeal appeals and to channel partial adjudications through clearly defined mechanisms. In the Eleventh Circuit, absent a Rule 54(b) certification, a partial summary judgment “does not end the action as to any of the claims,” and any attempt to use Rule 41(a) to dismiss fewer than all claims is “invalid upon filing.” The upshot is straightforward: to secure appellate jurisdiction on some but not all claims, counsel must either obtain Rule 54(b) certification (and a Rule 58 judgment), sever claims under Rule 21, or complete the case in the district court. To narrow pleadings midstream, use Rule 15—not Rule 41(a).

The decision enhances clarity, enforces textual fidelity to Rules 41 and 54, and provides a practical roadmap for litigants and judges to manage complex, multi-claim litigation without forfeiting the right to timely appellate review.

Case Details

Year: 2025
Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Comments