Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
Summary Judgment.
You know how much I love your show and you know that I never miss an episode. So it is only with the utmost respect that I tell you when you begin discussing legal matters, I cringe. Most of the time, you get the idea. In fact, you probably do a lot better than I do when I try to explain the inner workings of computers to people. Here's the scoop on summary judgment. Under the rules of civil procedure, one party can file a motion stating that there exists no outcome determinative material fact before the court and therefore the court should award judgment in it's favor. This is from rule 56 of the Federal or state rules of civil procedure, depending on what court you're in. This is not to be confused with a motion to dismiss under rule 12(b) or a motion for judgment on the pleadings under rule 12(c). If a party wins on summary judgment they win the case. A case may be dismissed with or without prejudice under the circumstances. A voluntary dismissal without prejudice under rule 41 is common. You get only one and thereafter, the dismissal is with prejudice. A case dismissed with prejudice cannot be filed again. Normally, in the American system, a party does not get an award of attorneys fees unless a statute specifically allows for it. I have not looked at the case that you discussed, but it sounds like the RIAA (and I'm in no way defending them) tried to dismiss the case in a voluntary manner. For the judge to, sua sponte, hit them with fees might be overreaching. When a plaintiff dismisses it's case, the court no longer has jurisdiction to do anything. I didn't mean for this to be long. I would happily be a guest on a law oriented show if you decide to do one. Perhaps the prosecutor listener could do it too and we'd have a panel. :)
Comments