[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 <EomdneX_IfmJY8fVnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@giganews.com>,
rjack <robjack@insightbb.com> 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
- Re: Dismissal with prejudice is normal, (continued)
- Re: Dismissal with prejudice is normal, Rick, 2008/06/19
- Re: Dismissal with prejudice is normal, rjack, 2008/06/19
- Re: Dismissal with prejudice is normal, Rick, 2008/06/19
- Re: Dismissal with prejudice is normal, David Kastrup, 2008/06/20
- Re: Dismissal with prejudice is normal, Alexander Terekhov, 2008/06/20
- Re: Dismissal with prejudice is normal, David Kastrup, 2008/06/20
- Re: Dismissal with prejudice is normal, Ezekiel, 2008/06/20
- Re: Dismissal with prejudice is normal, The Ghost In The Machine, 2008/06/19
- Re: Dismissal with prejudice is normal, Tim Smith, 2008/06/19
- Re: Dismissal with prejudice is normal, rjack, 2008/06/19
- Re: Dismissal with prejudice is normal,
Tim Smith <=
- Re: Dismissal with prejudice is normal, Alexander Terekhov, 2008/06/20
- Re: Dismissal with prejudice is normal, rjack, 2008/06/20
- Re: Dismissal with prejudice is normal, Tim Smith, 2008/06/20
- Re: Dismissal with prejudice is normal, Alexander Terekhov, 2008/06/20
- Re: Dismissal with prejudice is normal, Tim Smith, 2008/06/20
- Re: Dismissal with prejudice is normal, Alexander Terekhov, 2008/06/20
- Re: Dismissal with prejudice is normal, Tim Smith, 2008/06/20
- Re: Dismissal with prejudice is normal, Alexander Terekhov, 2008/06/21
- Re: Dismissal with prejudice is normal, rjack, 2008/06/21
- Re: Dismissal with prejudice is normal, David Kastrup, 2008/06/21