gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Dismissal with prejudice is normal


From: Tim Smith
Subject: Re: Dismissal with prejudice is normal
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 21:20:00 -0700
User-agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b2 (Intel Mac OS X)

In article <address@hidden>,
 rjack <address@hidden> wrote:
> > What do you find not equivalent about it?  The first spells out in great 
> > detail what the settlement was between the parties, whereas the second does 
> > not, but I don't see how that is relevant.  I don't recall offhand any 
> > requirement in the rules that the filing for dismissal has to include the 
> > terms of any settlement, or even state the reason for the dismissal.
> > 
> > About all we can deduce from those two examples, I think, is that Active 
> > Window Productions had a lawyer who was being paid by the hour when the 
> > lawyer drafted the document! :-)
> > 
>  From the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
> 
> "Rule 41. Dismissal of Actions (a) Voluntary Dismissal.
> 
> (1) By the Plaintiff.
> 
> (A) Without a Court Order. Subject to Rules 23(e), 23.1(c), 23.2 and 
> 66 and any applicable federal statute, the plaintiff may dismiss an 
> action without a court order by filing:
> 
> (i) a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an 
> answer or a motion for summary judgment; or
> 
> (ii) a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have 
> appeared.
> 
> (B) Effect. Unless the notice or stipulation states otherwise, the 
> dismissal is without prejudice. But if the plaintiff previously 
> dismissed any federal- or state-court action based on or including 
> the same claim, a notice of dismissal operates as an adjudication on 
> the merits. . ."
> 
> See Rule 41a(ii)?
> 
> Go to PACER and review the court records in the SFLC cases. No agreed upon
> stipulations for dismissal are to be found. Obviously the SFLC's voluntary
> dismissals are unilateral decisions by the plaintiffs.

Note that 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) are connected by "or", not 
"and".  Do you have reason to believe this dismissal was not under 
41(a)(1)(A)(i)?


-- 
--Tim Smith


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]