Last amended January 1, 2006 · Last verified July 1, 2026
In one sentenceRule 41 covers how a lawsuit can end early, either because the plaintiff chooses to drop it or because the court dismisses it, and it explains what that dismissal means for the future.
aBy Plaintiff by Stipulation. Subject to the provisions of Rules 23.05, 23.09 and 66, an action may be dismissed by the plaintiff without order of court (1) 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 (2) by filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared in the action. 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 who has once dismissed in any court of the United States or of any state an action based on or including the same claim.
bBy Order of Court. Except as provided in clause (a) of this rule, an action shall not be dismissed at the plaintiff’s instance except 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 prior to the service upon the defendant of the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss, the action shall not be dismissed against the defendant’s objection unless the counterclaim may remain pending for independent adjudication by the court. Unless otherwise specified in the order, a dismissal herein is without prejudice.
aThe court may upon its own initiative, or upon motion of a party, and upon such notice as it may prescribe, dismiss an action or claim for failure to prosecute or to comply with these rules or any order of the court.
bAfter the plaintiff has completed the presentation of evidence, the defendant, without waiving the right to offer evidence in the event the motion is not granted, may move for a dismissal on the ground that upon the facts and the law, the plaintiff has shown no right to relief. In an action tried by the court without a jury, the court as trier of the fact may then determine the facts and render judgment against the plaintiff or may decline to render any judgment until the close of all the evidence. If the court renders judgment on the merits against the plaintiff, the court shall make findings as provided in Rule 52.01.
cUnless the court specifies otherwise in its order, a dismissal pursuant to this rule and any dismissal not provided for in this rule or in Rule 41.01, other than a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, for forum non conveniens, or for failure to join a party indispensable pursuant to Rule 19, operates as an adjudication upon the merits.
41.03Dismissal of Counterclaim, Cross-Claim, or Third-Party Claim The provisions of Rules 41.01 and 41.02 apply to the dismissal of any counterclaim, cross- claim, or third-party claim.
41.04Costs of Previously Dismissed Action If a plaintiff who 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.
Advisory Committee Comments
Advisory Committee Comment--1993 Amendments
The amendment to this rule is made to conform the rule to its counterpart in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1). The existing rule in Minnesota seems to the committee archaic, establishing time requirements on the commencement of terms of court. Since 1977, Minnesota trial courts have had continuous terms. Minnesota Statutes, section 484.08 (1992). The former rule has permitted parties to dismiss claims without prejudice even after extensive discovery or other pretrial proceedings have taken place. Dismissal without prejudice has also been possible after the trial court has issued orders on preliminary
matters. The right to dismiss on the eve of trial has prejudiced defendants or has required courts to consider motions to deny a plaintiff the right to dismiss without prejudice. The committee is of the opinion that the right to dismiss without prejudice ought to be limited to a fairly short period after commencement of the action when prejudice to opponents is likely to be minimal. The Advisory Committee considered recommending a change to Rule 53 to make express provision for the use of referees in alternative dispute resolution and settlement proceedings, but has concluded that amendment of the rule is not necessary inasmuch as the rule now permits use of referees for this purpose in limited appropriate circumstances. The Advisory Committee is also mindful that the Minnesota Supreme Court Alternative Dispute Resolution Implementation Committee has recently submitted its Final Report dated August 25, 1993. The Advisory Committee is of the opinion that that Report can be considered independently of the recommendations of this committee. The committee also believes that if more specific and comprehensive rules on the use of referees in alternative dispute resolution are advisable, such rules might better be incorporated in Rules for Alternative Dispute Resolution.
Advisory Committee Comment—2006 Amendment
Rule 41.01(a) is amended to renumber one of the rule cross-references to reflect the amendment and renumbering of Rule 23 as part of the amendments effective January 1, 2006.
Amendment History
(Amended effective January 1, 2006.)
Plain-English Summary
Sometimes a case ends before trial because someone decides it should. Rule 41 covers two distinct paths to that outcome: the plaintiff choosing to walk away, and the court stepping in to end the case.
Early in a case, a plaintiff has real freedom. Before the other side files an answer or asks for summary judgment, whichever comes first, the plaintiff can end the case by filing a notice of dismissal. Alternatively, at any point, all parties who have appeared can sign a stipulation ending the case together. Unless the paperwork says otherwise, this type of dismissal does not bar the plaintiff from suing again later. There is one exception worth knowing: if a plaintiff has already dismissed the same claim once before in any court, doing it a second time by notice counts as a final decision on the merits, closing the door on a third attempt. This is often called the two-dismissal rule.
Once the case has moved past that early stage, the plaintiff cannot walk away unilaterally. Ending the case now requires asking the court, and the court sets whatever terms it thinks are fair. If the defendant has already filed a counterclaim, the court will not let the plaintiff’s part of the case go unless the counterclaim can still be decided on its own. A court can also dismiss a case on its own, without the plaintiff asking, if a party fails to move the case forward or ignores the rules or a court order.
Dismissal can also happen mid-trial. After the plaintiff finishes presenting evidence in a case tried without a jury, the defendant can ask the judge to dismiss the case for lack of proof. The judge can rule right then, based on the facts and the law, or wait until all the evidence is in before deciding. If the judge does rule against the plaintiff at that point, the ruling must include written findings. Unless a court order says otherwise, most dismissals under this rule count as final decisions on the merits, with narrow exceptions for things like the court lacking jurisdiction over the case.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I drop my lawsuit whenever I want?
Only during a narrow window. Before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment, whichever happens first, the plaintiff can file a notice of dismissal without asking the court. After that point, dismissing the case generally requires a court order.
What does “without prejudice” mean when I dismiss my own case?
It means the case is not decided on the merits, so, unless the notice or stipulation says otherwise, the plaintiff generally remains free to file the same claim again later.
What is the “two-dismissal rule”?
If a plaintiff has already dismissed the same claim once before, in any Minnesota or federal court, filing a second notice of dismissal on that same claim acts as a final decision on the merits instead of a dismissal without prejudice.
Can a court dismiss my case even if I have not asked for that?
Yes. The court can dismiss an action on its own initiative, or on a party’s motion, if the case is not being prosecuted or if a party fails to comply with the rules or a court order.
What happens if the defendant asks to dismiss my case in the middle of trial?
After the plaintiff finishes presenting evidence in a trial without a jury, the defendant can move to dismiss on the ground that the plaintiff has not shown a right to relief. The judge can decide right away or wait until all the evidence has been presented, and if the judge rules against the plaintiff, the ruling must include written findings.
Source & verification. The rule text and Advisory Committee Comments are reproduced verbatim from the
official Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure (Minn. R. Civ. P. 41). Prescribed by the Supreme Court of Minnesota (Minn. Stat. § 480.051). The plain-English summary is original and written by us. Last verified July 1, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as:voluntary dismissaldismiss lawsuitdrop a case
Advisory Committee Comment--1993 Amendments
The amendment to this rule is made to conform the rule to its counterpart in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1). The existing rule in Minnesota seems to the committee archaic, establishing time requirements on the commencement of terms of court. Since 1977, Minnesota trial courts have had continuous terms. Minnesota Statutes, section 484.08 (1992). The former rule has permitted parties to dismiss claims without prejudice even after extensive discovery or other pretrial proceedings have taken place. Dismissal without prejudice has also been possible after the trial court has issued orders on preliminary
matters. The right to dismiss on the eve of trial has prejudiced defendants or has required courts to consider motions to deny a plaintiff the right to dismiss without prejudice. The committee is of the opinion that the right to dismiss without prejudice ought to be limited to a fairly short period after commencement of the action when prejudice to opponents is likely to be minimal. The Advisory Committee considered recommending a change to Rule 53 to make express provision for the use of referees in alternative dispute resolution and settlement proceedings, but has concluded that amendment of the rule is not necessary inasmuch as the rule now permits use of referees for this purpose in limited appropriate circumstances. The Advisory Committee is also mindful that the Minnesota Supreme Court Alternative Dispute Resolution Implementation Committee has recently submitted its Final Report dated August 25, 1993. The Advisory Committee is of the opinion that that Report can be considered independently of the recommendations of this committee. The committee also believes that if more specific and comprehensive rules on the use of referees in alternative dispute resolution are advisable, such rules might better be incorporated in Rules for Alternative Dispute Resolution.