Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 41:
(b) Involuntary
Dismissal; Effect. If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these
rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim
against it. Unless the dismissal order states otherwise, a dismissal under this
subdivision (b) and any dismissal not under this rule—except one for lack of
jurisdiction, improper venue, or failure to join a party under Rule 19—operates
as an adjudication on the merits. [emphasis added]
(I haven't
checked for any local rules for the Western District of Wisconsin, but local
rules are not allowed to reduce any party's rights.)
This clause (b) is
distinguished from other clauses, which specify "dismissal without prejudice,"
by specifying only "dismissal". This should mean, by the omission of "without
prejudice," that this clause covers dismissal with prejudice.
The phrase
"adjudication on the merits" would seem to invoke res judicata, would it
not?
On the other hand, if Her Honor dismisses for lack of Article III
jurisdiction (per the Motorola brief), the lack-of-jurisdiction exception
in the rule might not invoke the "adjudication on the merits" phrase.
If
res judicata is invoked, would that not preclude any other action on the
same issues? --- --Bill. NAL: question the answers, especially mine. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|