[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Dismissal with prejudice is normal

From: Alexander Terekhov
Subject: Re: Dismissal with prejudice is normal
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 17:34:12 +0200

Tim Smith wrote:
> In article <>,
>  rjack <> wrote:
> > > 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.
> So?  Why do you think it significant that no stipulation was filed?  If
> the prerequisites of 41(a)(1)(A)(i) were met, why would they not use
> that section, and make the simpler, smaller, filing?

If they've settled, why not roll the agreement into a court order by
mutual stipulation akin to
<> (see also

Even wikipedia knows that 

"Generally, when a settlement is reached in the U.S., it will be
submitted to the court to be "rolled into a court order". This is done
so that the court which was initially assigned the case may retain
jurisdiction over it. The court is then free to modify its order as
necessary to achieve justice in the case, and a party that breaches the
settlement may be held in contempt of court, rather than facing only a
civil claim for the breach. In cases where confidentiality is required
by the parties, the court order may refer to another document which is
not disclosed, but which may be revealed to prove a breach of the

(Total lack of jurisdiction from the start due to unregistered Busybox
copyrights aside for a moment.)


(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)

reply via email to

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