amicus_curious wrote:
"Linonut" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
