|Subject:||Re: "News" Verizon calls SFLC bluff|
|Date:||Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:43:09 -0400|
|User-agent:||Thunderbird 188.8.131.52 (Windows/20080213)|
"Linonut" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message news:57CDj.email@example.com...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.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?
Technically you are correct according to FRCP 41. That leaves us to simply speculate as to why the plaintiffs Andersen and Landley committed legal suicide:
"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.)
|[Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread]|