Childs, Justin Ray

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the district court 24 “properly considered dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) rather than Rule 41(a)(1)” when 25 plaintiff filed its notice of dismissal after defendant filed its answer
• recognizing the “general rule” that “a dismissal with prejudice does not 22 ordinarily warrant an award of fees and costs”
• stating that an award of fees and costs with a Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal is warranted only in “extraordinary circumstances”
• noting that, “in the ordinary case, dismissal with prejudice protects a defendant from otherwise repetitive litigation, whereas dismissal without prejudice leaves a defendant at risk of re-litigating dismissed issues”
• finding exceptional circumstances is a “high bar for litigants to meet,” but existed where plaintiff’s counsel routinely ignored multiple, unequivocal warnings that the case was unmeritorious, and proceeded with depositions
• discussing how the “general rule acknowledges that, in the ordinary case, dismissal with prejudice protects a defendant from otherwise repetitive litigation, whereas dismissal without prejudice leaves a defendant at risk of re-litigating dismissed issues”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).