a complaint without prejudice is not appealable. See Kouba v. Febeo, Inc., 1998 ND 171, ¶ 4, 583 N.W.2d 810; Community Homes of Bismarck, Inc. v. Cloo-ten, 508 N.W.2d 364, 365 (N.D.1993); Runck v. Brakke, 421 N.W.2d 487, 488 (N.D.1988). Because either' party may commence another action after a civil complaint is dismissed without prejudice, an order dismissing an action without prejudice neither “determines the action” nor “prevents a judgment from which an appeal might be taken.” See N.D.C.C. § 28-27-02(1). Such an order of dismissal does not involve the merits of an action or some part thereof. See N.D.C.C. § 28-27-02(5); Runck, at 488. [¶ 6] We have also explained, however, a dismissal without prejudice may be final and appealable where the dismissal has the “practical effe 115 (<HOLDING>); Winer v. Penny Enters., Inc., 2004 ND 21, ¶
holding that dismissal of prior action in louisiana federal court on the grounds of the statute of limitations bar subsequent action filed in minnesota federal district court holding that claim preclusion did not bar fire insurer from bringing a second action against its coplaintiff in first action holding appealable dismissal without prejudice where sixyear statute of limitation would not bar plaintiff from bringing a subsequent action but where certain statutory notice prerequisites to filing an action arising out of pesticide application did holding that plaintiffs dismissal of personal injury action and subsequent dismissal of declaratory judgment action concerning extent of tortfeasors insurance coverage did not trigger double dismissal rule holding that res judicata did not preclude the subsequent filing of an action which was a permissive claim in a prior action