of terminating the litigation in the plaintiffs chosen forum.” See Haugenoe v. Bambrick, 2003 ND 92, ¶2, 663 N.W.2d 175. We have consistently held that where a statute of limitations has run, a dismissal of the entire action “effectively forecloses litigation in the courts of this state.” Id. Thus, a dismissal without prejudice is appealable where a statute of limitations has run. See Beaudoin v. South Texas Blood and Tissue Center, 2004 ND 49, ¶ 7, 676 N.W.2d 103; Van Klootwyk v. Baptist Home, Inc., 2003 ND 112, ¶ 7, 665 N.W.2d 679; Jaskoviak v. Graver, 2002 ND 1, ¶ 8, 638 N.W.2d 1. [¶.7] We have also held dismissals without prejudice are final and appealable where litigation is foreclosed in the state courts. See Rolette County Soc. Serv. Bd. v. B.E., 2005 ND 101, ¶4, 697 N.W.2d 333 (<HOLDING>); Pratt v. Altendorf, 2005 ND 32, ¶4, 692
holding appealable district courts dismissal for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction over enrolled tribal members holding that district court had subjectmatter jurisdiction and yet that judgment void for lack of jurisdiction to render the particular judgment holding that a district court had jurisdiction to impose rule 11 sanctions regardless of the existence of subjectmatter jurisdiction holding appealable district courts order dismissing for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction due to determination of exclusive tribal court jurisdiction holding that standing is component of subjectmatter jurisdiction and subjectmatter jurisdiction is essential to courts authority to hear case