Re: "News" Verizon calls SFLC bluff

[rjack]

amicus_curious wrote:
> "Linonut" <linonut@bollsouth.nut> wrote in message 
> news:57CDj.11278$%15.9389@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
> > Then why did they bother?  And, if SFLC was at such a disadvantage, why
> > wouldn't big ol' Verizon just go ahead and let little ol' SFLC take its
> > beating in court?
> They couldn't object to a voluntary dismissal.  That is an action in 
> their favor.  They could countersue in some way, perhaps, but the SFLC 
> is just a flea and Verizon has a lot more to do than worry about 
> something like that after it has gone away anyway.

Here's why Andersen and Landley committed legal suicide:

A voluntary dismissal with predjudice is res judicata and a basis for 
future collateral estoppel claims:

"A voluntary dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication 
on the merits and has a res judicata effect. Harrison v. Edison Bros. 
Apparel Stores, Inc., 924 F.2d 530, 534 (4th Cir. 1991) (concluding that 
a voluntary dismissal with prejudice 'is a complete adjudication on the 
merits of the dismissed claim.')"; The Travelers Insurance Company v. 
AlliedSignal TBS Holdings, 2001 FED App. 0357P (6th Cir.)

Under the doctrine of collateral estoppel the BusyBox plaintiffs 
probably cannot bring a similar suit against any future defendants:

“Under res judicata, a final judgment on the merits of an action 
precludes the parties or their privies from relitigating issues that 
were or could have been raised in that action. Under collateral 
estoppel, once a court has decided an issue of fact or law necessary to 
its judgment, that decision may preclude relitigation of the issue in a 
suit on a different cause of action involving a party to the first 
case.”; San Remo Hotel v. San Francisco, 545 U.S. 323 (2005), fn. 16.

Sincerely,
Rjack