Rule 41 - Dismissal of Actions(a) Voluntary Dismissal: Effect Thereof. (1)By Plaintiff; by Stipulation. Subject to the provisions of Rule 23(e) and of any statute, an action may be dismissed by the plaintiff without order of court (A) 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 (B) by filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties that have appeared in the action; provided, however, that no action wherein a receiver has been appointed shall be dismissed except by order of the court. A dismissal under this paragraph may be as to one or more, but fewer than all claims, plaintiffs, or defendants. Unless otherwise stated in the notice of dismissal or stipulation, the dismissal is without prejudice, except that a notice of dismissal operates as an adjudication upon the merits when filed by a plaintiff that has once dismissed in any court of this state or any other state or the United States an action based on or including the same claim. (2)By Order of Court. Except as provided in paragraph (1) of this subdivision of this rule, 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. If a counterclaim has been pleaded by a defendant before the service upon the defendant of the plaintiff's motion to dismiss, the counterclaim shall remain pending for independent adjudication by the court despite the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim. Unless otherwise specified in the order, a dismissal under this paragraph is without prejudice. (b) Involuntary Dismissal: Effect Thereof. (1)On Court's Own Motion. The court, on its own motion, after notice to the parties, and in the absence of a showing of good cause to the contrary, shall dismiss an action for want of prosecution at any time more than two years after the last docket entry showing any action taken therein by the plaintiff other than a motion for continuance. (2)On Motion of Defendant. For failure of the plaintiff to prosecute for 2 years or to comply with these rules or any order of court, a defendant may move for dismissal of an action or of any claim against the defendant. (3)Effect. Unless the court in its order for dismissal otherwise specifies, a dismissal under this subdivision (b) and any dismissal not provided for in this rule, other than a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, for improper venue, or for failure to join a party under Rule 19, operates as an adjudication upon the merits. (c) Dismissal of Counterclaim, Cross-Claim, or Third-Party Claim. The provisions of this rule apply to the dismissal of any counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim. (d) Costs of Previously-Dismissed Action. If a plaintiff that has once dismissed an action in any court commences an action based upon or including the same claim against the same defendant, the court may make such order for the payment of costs of the action previously dismissed as it may deem proper and may stay the proceedings in the action until the plaintiff has complied with the order. Amended November 3, 2023, effective 11/15/2023.Advisory Note - November 2023
Subdivision (a)(1) of Rule 41 is amended to allow for dismissal under this paragraph as to fewer than all plaintiffs or defendants.
The rule is also amended to make numbering consistent and to make stylistic changes not affecting the substance of the rule.
Advisory Committee's Notes - 1989
Rule 41(a)(l) is amended to provide that the plaintiff may unilaterally dismiss an action only prior to the filing of the answer or a motion for summary judgment, rather than at any time prior to trial, as formerly.
The amendment adopts the language of Federal Rule 41(a)(1). The Maine Rule as promulgated in 1959 departed from the Federal Rule in deference to prior Maine practice. See Reporter's Notes to M.R. Civ. P. 41(a); 1 Field, McKusick, and Wroth, Maine Civil Practice § 41.1 (2d ed. 1970). The development of extensive pretrial discovery practice and the recent emphasis on expedited pretrial procedure in Maine mean that plaintiffs should no longer have the tactical ability to impose expense and delay on other parties or avoid rule-or court-imposed deadlines by dismissal after extensive pretrial proceedings have taken place. The amendment will change the result of Hall v. Norton, 549 A.2d 372 (Me. 1988), in which the Law Court upheld a voluntary dismissal filed without prior notice to the court or defendant at 9:00 on the morning on which jury selection was to begin.