Quepasa.com Settles Whatshappenin.com Lawsuit

Bob Roberts writes: "It looks like the frivolous lawsuit brought against quepasa.com by Whatshappenin.com is finally over: the case has been settled by Quepasa.com. What does 'dismissed with prejudice' mean?"

Comments

Domain name infringement

[TheDawgter]

Dear Sirs/Madames; This is our last warning. As the owner of the trademarked domains "ot.com", the workaholics annonymous website, and "t.com", the Boston Harbor Authority web presence, we insist that you cease and decist using our registered trademarks in your domain name, "slashdot.com". If you fail to comply with our demand, we will be forced to defend our trademark through other means. Sincerely, R. E. Dickulus

Slashdot en espa�ol

[mlc]

Anyone know how to say "Slashdot" in Spanish?? :-)

There's a site barrapunto.com which appears to be a spanish slashdot-esque thingy and uses the Slash code and has lots of people posting using the name "Pendejo Sin Nombre"... you get the idea.

Misinformation at the speed of light

[alkali]

Some of the comments above scare me. Here's the real scoop:

When a case is "settled," as the linked article tells us that this case was, it almost always means that the plaintiff -- the person or entity who brought the case -- agreed to voluntarily dismiss their case with prejudice in exchange for something they want, often money. Dismissal "with prejudice" means the plaintiff can't refile the case. (If the plaintiff were able to refile the case, it would make the settlement worthless to the defendant.)

A voluntary dismissal is usually entered automatically by the clerk of the court. A dismissal in connection with a settlement therefore does not reflect any judge's opinion on the merits of a case, and has no value as precedent.

The following things are not true or are nonsensical:

• It's a good way for the judge to "honorably" state their disgust, which is probably the case here (the case wasn't ruled on, it settled, and even a dismissal by a judge does not express disgust for the lawsuit)
• The *judge* has the final decision... hence res judicata. Judges aren't supposed to tell plaintiffs their arguements are full of @#$& (this case was settled, but in the real world judges quite properly throw out cases all the time before juries hear them, see Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 56 for details of how this happens in federal courts)
• 'prejudice' here means a pre-trial decision (as before, there was no decision, and anyway the term has nothing to do with trials)
• It['s] good to see that these things, for the most part, are being dealt with properly by the courts (the court had nothing to do with it here, it settled)
• The case WILL NOT BE allowed another trial unless another judge throws the original finding of prejudice excessively premature (there was no first trial, there was no "finding" of prejudice)
• The case CAN be pursued... the problem is getting the decision of one judge changed by another. Few judges like to make "precedence" like that (the judge made no decision here; beyond that, I have no idea what this guy means)
• This does prevent future claims. Prejudice is used to prevent "me too" cases. That situation is what class-action suits are for. A case dismissed "Without Prejudice" allows new evidence to be ADDED to the original, giving the plaintiff(s) a chance to build their case. In these cases, the judge is telling the plaintiff that they're probably right, but for the wrong reasons. (take this out back and shoot it)

Prejudice is illegal.:) It's to kill w/o tricks.

[www.sorehands.com]

Dismissed with prejudice is the way to kill a case that can't be brought again.

When you dismiss, it can be with or without prejudice. Without means that the case can be brought again. Usually that can be done by the plaintiff before the defendant answers. After their is an answer, it needs to be agreed to by the defendant or ordered by a judge.

Dismissed with prejudice mean it's dead. But a new case can't be brought unless there is a new violation that is signifantly different from what occurred before filing.

Mattel tried that trick with me. They tried to dismiss w/o prejudice in my case. This would allow them to bring it again, anywhere that Mattel had a location. Probably without anti-SLAPP statute, and maybe without free speech. Maybe they were thinking of bringing in China, where there is no free speech?