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: rjack
Subject: Re: Dismissal with prejudice is normal
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 07:34:10 -0400
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421)

Tim Smith wrote:
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)?


Since no mutual stipulations under 41(a)ii are to be found, it's a good bet
the unilateral 41(a)1 is being used by the plaintiffs.

Sincerely,
Rjack

“The GPL is a License, Not a Contract, Which is Why the Sky Isn't Falling”, Sunday, December 14 2003 @ 09:06 PM EST Pamela Jones at Groklaw
http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20031214210634851




reply via email to

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