T1 In this appeal we are asked to determine whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment to 4Life Research, L.C. (dLife). The district court concluded that Nu-Med USA, Inc.'s (Nu-Med) claims were barred by rule 18 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure as compulsory counterclaims that were required to be litigated in prior litigation between the parties. The court also rejected Nu-Med's position that it could refile the claims because they had been voluntarily dismissed without prejudice in the prior litigation. We hold that Nu-Med's claims are not barred by rule 18 and reverse.
BACKGROUND
T2 In early 2002, 4Life filed a lawsuit against Nu-Med and Paul Ulrich (Ulrich) in the United States District Court for the District of Utah (the federal case). Both Nu-Med and 4Life are network marketing businesses engaged in the sale of various health related products. In the federal case, 4Life alleged claims against Nu-Med and Ulrich for breach of contract, business defamation, intentional interference with business relations, and conspiracy.
3 Nu-Med answered 4Life's complaint in the federal case and asserted several counterclaims. - Nu-Med moved for summary judgment and, following discussion of Nu-Med's motion during two pre-trial conferences, the court granted Nu-Med's motion. During one of the pre-trial conferences, when *1265 the court asked if Nu-Med was interested in pursuing its counterclaims if summary judgment were granted, counsel for Nu-Med stated they were "willing to dismiss without prejudice those counterclaims." Concurrent with the summary judgment order, Nu-Med voluntarily dismissed its ~ counterclaims against 4Life without prejudice and with the court's approval. The claims between Ulrich and 4Life proceeded to trial, The jury awarded 4Life nominal damages for Ulrich's breach of contract. The jury also found that 4Life had defamed Ulrich and interfered with the contract between Ulrich and Nu-Med, and awarded Ulrich $425,000. 4Life appealed its adverse judgment with respect to Ulrich to the Tenth Circuit, but ultimately settled with Ulrich while the appeal was pending. 4Life did not appeal the adverse summary judgment grant of the Nu-Med claims.
T4 Subsequently, Nu-Med initiated this lawsuit (the state case) in July 2005, filing claims substantially similar to the counterclaims it had filed against 4Life in the federal case. 4Life responded that the claims should be dismissed as "compulsory counterclaims" that could only have been litigated, if at all, in the federal case. Following oral argument, the district court agreed with 4Life, granted 4Life's summary judgment motion, and dismissed Nu-Med's complaint with prejudice. Nu-Med appealed the district court's decision. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Utah Code section 78A-8-102@8)() (2008).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
15 "We review the district court's decision to grant summary judgment for correctness, affording the trial court no deference. In reviewing the grant of summary judgment, we recognize that summary judgment is appropriate only when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Crestwood Cove Apartments Bus. Trust v. Turner,
ANALYSIS
16 Rule 41 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure allows for a voluntary dismissal of "any counterclaim." Utah R. Civ. P. 41(c). Rule 18(a) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, governing compulsory counterclaims, mandates that a party must state any counterclaims arising "out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject-matter of the opposing party's claim." Utah R. Civ. P. 13(a). 4Life argues that these two rules are in conflict with each other, and that because rule 18(a) is the more specific of the two rules regarding compulsory counterclaims, it must govern under ordinary rules of statutory construction. See Grynberg v. Questar Pipeline Co.,
I. RULE 41
17 While the federal district court dismissed Nu-Med's counterclaims without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure rather than the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, Utah's rule 41 and its federal counterpart are similar. Both allow a claimant, whether a plaintiff or a equnter claimant, to voluntarily dismiss a claim upon stipulation of the parties or by order of the court upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper. Compare Fed.R.Civ.P. 41, with Utah R. Civ. P. 41.
1
In the federal case, Nu-Med voluntai'fly dismissed its counterclaims by court order. Under both the Utah and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
*1266
it is clear that unless otherwise specified, a voluntary dismissal under rule 41 is without prejudice. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(2); Utah R. Civ. P. 41(a)(@)(@). The plain language of both rules suggests that a court order might specify that a dismissal is with prejudice. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(@(@); Utah R. Civ. P. 4l1(a)(2)(ii). Under both sets of rules, a judge has discretion to set the terms and conditions of a dismissal. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(@)@) Utah R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2)(@i); see also Yusky v. Chief Consol. Mining Co.,
T8 Conceivably, a dismissal without prejudice of a plaintiffs or counter claimant's claim could result in costly relitigation of the dismissed claim. We have held that this is particularly true when a counter claimant voluntarily dismisses its claim while aware that a plaintiff intends to appeal an adverse judgment on its underlying claims. Harmon v. Greenwood,
II. RULE 183(a)
T9 Rule 13(a) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure describes what makes a counterclaim compulsory, and thus barred from litigation if not brought in the same action as certain other claims:
A pleading shall state as a counterclaim any claim which at the time of serving the pleading the pleader has against any opposing party, if it arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject-matter of the opposing party's claim and does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction. But the pleader need not state the claim if (1) at the time the action was commenced the claim was the subject of another pending action, or (2) the opposing party brought suit upon his claim by attachment or other process by which the court did not acquire jurisdiction to render a personal judgment on that claim, and the pleader is not stating any counterclaim under this Rule 13.
Utah R. Civ. P. 13(3).
T 10 It is undisputed that Nu-Med's federal counterclaims arose "out of the same transaction or occurrence that is the subject-matter" of 4Life's claims. Neither is it disputed that the claims Nu-Med now seeks to bring in the state case are substantially similar to the counterclaims it brought against 4Life in the federal case. Thus, 4Life argues that these claims should be deemed compulsory counterclaims that had to be litigated in the federal case or be barred forever. Nu-Med argues that because it stated and litigated its claims in the federal case up to the point where 4Life's claims were dismissed, it complied with rule 13(a), and its claims should not be barred.
111 Nu-Med and 4Life each present us with cases decided by other courts that have *1267 faced a similar problem. The most pertinent cases are discussed below.
112 Arkansas decided a similar case, but under slightly different rules of procedure. In Linn v. NationsBank, the Arkansas Supreme Court held that under the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure, a counter claimant had a "right to proceed ... although the plaintiff's action may have been dismissed" and that Arkansas' compulsory counterclaim rule only required that a counterclaim be stated, but the court did not explicitly require litigation of that claim.
4 13 In another case discussing compulsory counterclaims, the Fourth Cireuit held that a counter claimant who has its claims voluntarily dismissed could not bring substantially similar claims in a new case. SSMC, Inc. v. Steffen,
T14 The Colorado Court of Appeals followed the Fourth Cireuit and distinguished itself from Arkansas when it was faced with a similar case. Grynberg v. Phillips,
« 15 We have stated that "[the purpose of rule 18(a) is to ensure that all relevant claims arising out of a given transaction are litigated in the same action." Raile Family Trust v. Promax Dev. Corp.,
116 However, judicial economy ceases to present the same concern for counterclaims the moment the underlying claims of the opposing party are resolved permanently and without appeal. Having no claim to counter, there is no independent reason to insist upon continuing to litigate the original counterclaims if both parties agree and the court decides "upon such terms and conditions" as it deems proper that a voluntary dismissal is appropriate. Utah R. Civ. P. 4l(a)@)(if). At such a moment, the counter claimant is more like a plaintiff because there is only one set of claims between the two parties. There is no efficiency to be gained by compelling litigation of claims that are no longer being simultaneously litigated with an opposing party's claims. The court can still refuse to grant a voluntary dismissal to a counter claimant pursuant to the discretion given by rule 41, if for other reasons (having proceeded too far into litigation, for instance) such a grant would not be proper, just as the court can deny a similar request by a plaintiff.
T17 In the federal case, 4Life's claims against Nu-Med were dismissed on summary judgment. - Although the trial proceeded with other claims between Ulrich and 4Life, Nu-Med was not a party to those claims. 4Life appealed only judgments against it related to Ulrich and not those involving Nu-Med. At that point, Nu-Med's claims ceased to be compulsory counterclaims because there were no claims left to counter. The purpose of simultaneous litigation, at least with respect to Nu-Med, was no longer thwarted with a dismissal because there were no underlying claims to simultaneously litigate.
1 18 It is possible that other cireumstances might have led the federal district court to hesitate before granting a voluntary dismissal without prejudice, but that decision lay within its discretion. When the federal district court dismissed Nu-Med's claims without prejudice, it did not condition the dismissal with any other language. 4Life did not object to the characterization of the dismissal as being without prejudice. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, the federal judge could have refused to grant the dismissal or dismissed the claims with prejudice, but he did not. We defer to the federal judge's discretion in dismissing the counterclaims without prejudice. Because 4Life's underlying claims against Nu-Med were resolved at the time of the voluntary dismissal, Nu-Med's compulsory counterclaims ceased to be compulsory. Therefore, there is no violation of Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 13(a), and Nu-Med's claims may be litigated in a Utah court.
CONCLUSION
T 19 Our holding is narrow. -If all underlying claims against a party have been resolved, if these rulings are not appealed, if the opposing party agrees to a voluntary dismissal without prejudice, if the judge grants a voluntary dismissal without prejudice, and if all other requirements are met for a rule 41 dismissal without prejudice, then a party's counterclaims arising out of the same transaction or occurrence as the opposing party's original claims cease to be compulsory under rule 13 and may be brought again.
T20 Here, 4Life's claims against Nu-Med in the federal case were fully resolved upon summary judgment and were not appealed. Without objection from 4Life, the federal district court granted Nu-Med a voluntary dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 on counterclaims that arose from the same transaction or occurrence as 4Life's claims. Thus Nu-Med's counterclaims are no longer compulsory under rule 13 and may be brought again in a Utah court. We therefore reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment *1269 and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Notes
. The numbering within both Utah rule 41 and Federal rule 41 has been amended since the federal district court dismissed Nu-Med's claims without prejudice. None of the changes were substantive. This decision cites the newly numbered versions. .
. - Unlike the Utah rule 41, which requires a court order even upon stipulation of the parties, the federal rule 41 allows for a voluntary dismissal without court order upon stipulation of all parties. Compare Utah R. Civ. P. 41, with Fed. RCiv.P. 41(a)(1). In this case, however, Nu-Med's counterclaims were dismissed upon court order.