1115.08[4] (listing the reasons for denying leave to amend a complaint); 5 Moore’s Federal Practice 1141.05[1] (listing reasons for refusal to grant a dismissal without prejudice); see also 5 Moore’s Federal Practice 1141.06-1 (noting that when a party moves to dismiss one of several claims, “the choice of rules is largely a formal matter”). In the present case, the course of proceedings is similar to the situation where a single suit is brought on several counts, and the plaintiff then asks the court to dismiss one count. In such a case, the court would have the discretion to dismiss the dropped count with prejudice. See, e.g., Etablissements Neyrpic v. Elmer C. Gardner, Inc., 175 F.Supp. 355, 358 (S.D. Tex.1959). Cf. Reisner v. General Motors Corp., 671 F.2d 91, 96, 99 (2d Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 858, 103 S.Ct. 130, 74
holding that a claim was withdrawn and waived when the party stated it was dropping the claim in order to avoid sanctions for failing to answer interrogatories related to the claim holding that retaliation claim was reasonably related to prior sex discrimination claim holding a claim is waived when there is no meaningful argument on the claim in the opening brief holding that regarded as claim was reasonably related to claim of discrimination on the basis of disability holding that while batson claim was waived derivative claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the batson claim is cognizable under the pcra