Josh Duggar Part 11 - The End of Rehab Is in Sight

[Whoosh]

9 minutes ago, justoneoftwo said:

It also might just be something he always includes.  That would be a common one.  

I found the bits I was talking about - in Duggar's answer to the complaint in his list of affirmative defenses.  I don't know how standard these might be - perhaps you might know?

FOURTH DEFENSE
4. Plaintiff’s injuries or losses are due solely to a third-party and/or circumstances over which Defendant had no control.

SIXTH DEFENSE
7. Plaintiff failed to join and/or name an indispensable party. 

http://radaronline.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/josh-duggar-danica-dillon-lawsuit-signed.pdf

I have mostly tried to avoid mentioning this as I could not remember where I read it and really obviously can't know what he is meaning.  

[DuggarWatch]

1 hour ago, Whoosh said:

I found the bits I was talking about - in Duggar's answer to the complaint in his list of affirmative defenses.  I don't know how standard these might be - perhaps you might know?

FOURTH DEFENSE
4. Plaintiff’s injuries or losses are due solely to a third-party and/or circumstances over which Defendant had no control.

SIXTH DEFENSE
7. Plaintiff failed to join and/or name an indispensable party. 

http://radaronline.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/josh-duggar-danica-dillon-lawsuit-signed.pdf

I have mostly tried to avoid mentioning this as I could not remember where I read it and really obviously can't know what he is meaning.  

Sounds like it was a threesome.  

[justoneoftwo]

1 hour ago, Whoosh said:

I found the bits I was talking about - in Duggar's answer to the complaint in his list of affirmative defenses.  I don't know how standard these might be - perhaps you might know?

FOURTH DEFENSE
4. Plaintiff’s injuries or losses are due solely to a third-party and/or circumstances over which Defendant had no control.

SIXTH DEFENSE
7. Plaintiff failed to join and/or name an indispensable party. 

http://radaronline.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/josh-duggar-danica-dillon-lawsuit-signed.pdf

I have mostly tried to avoid mentioning this as I could not remember where I read it and really obviously can't know what he is meaning.  

Sounds to me like he is saying it was done by some other person x.  X is outside of Josh's control and should be the person sued.  This also fits with him saying he was never in PA during that time.  

Alternatively, these are defenses people use with almost every case.  

[Whoosh]

Those explanations would both make sense and the second would be consistent with Josh's entire story.  My first thought was really probably based on my psychology training (which is the opposite of useful in some ways here if she is lying).  I had thought from the moment she filed the suit that she would argue that she was harmed in March and April (by Duggar) and she simply went on with her life, but that her symptoms got worse over time and then were exacerbated by the two media scandals.  If that were true, a reasonable defense would be that the people responsible for those media scandals and not Duggar should actually be named as defendants for whatever harms resulted from the media scandals.  I know that is just my thinking and it could be all kinds of other reasons including the ones mentioned or that it is just something standard included in many/most responses.  I wonder if we will ever know.

[Hera]

I don't know. Didn't read all of the Answer or other court documents, but those sound like boilerplate Affirmative Defenses to me.  The lawyer probably includes them in every Answer he files.  In some states I have practiced in, you're required to assert them in the Answer or you can not later use them  even if the evidence turns out to support them, so attorneys throw everything they can think of in there, just to be safe. No idea about PA, though.

[countressrascal]

Shouldn't Joshy boy be coming home soon?

[church_of_dog]

On January 29, 2016 at 11:24 PM, Fundie Bunny said:

Being PC and civil are not the same thing. There is a difference between calling spmeone a deeply pejorative term like nigger and not being able to say prostitute brcause the term might offend someone in some context. It is about respect, not about the words

Um.  I agree that it's about respect, but I don't agree with the rest of this.  Even acknowledging that it's the respect/disrepect that matters, the only difference I see between the N-word and any other word that might be reasonably interpreted to be offensive is, oh, about 50 years.

[Secular Sweetness]

Legal question - Has the defense put all it's eggs in one basket, so to speak, submitting in the court documents the sworn statement that Josh has never ever met DD and therefore was never in those locations with her.  If she were to have evidence he was in any of those locations with her, would it even matter anymore what happened between them because he already had lied?

 

[Whoosh]

8 hours ago, Secular Sweetness said:

Legal question - Has the defense put all it's eggs in one basket, so to speak, submitting in the court documents the sworn statement that Josh has never ever met DD and therefore was never in those locations with her.  If she were to have evidence he was in any of those locations with her, would it even matter anymore what happened between them because he already had lied?

 

Theoretically, no.  Basically this whole suit is still in the very early stages.  Dillon submitted her complaint and Duggar has submitted his answer.  There have been a few motions and discovery is underway, but that is it.  

• You may have heard that Dillon's COMPLAINT was "barely pled".  The judge did write that in an order.  That has nothing necessarily to do with the strength or weakness of her case.  The complaint needs to lay out what the plaintiff is saying the defendant did as a basis for the lawsuit - what was his/her unlawful action(s).  It also needs to lay out the harms caused and the legal theory that would allow for recovery in a court of law.  It does NOT need to be detailed or all that fact specific at all.  It just needs to "present a case" that has reason to be in court.  That is it.  The plaintiff is NOT trying to prove their case at this stage.  All they are trying to do is to show the court enough to convince the judge that they have stated a claim which, if assumed true, would be grounds for remedy.  According to the judge, Dillon "barely pled" her case, but that is often a problem with the lawyer and what they chose to write rather than anything with the actual case itself.  Of course, it could be a problem with the case - consider the woman who tried to sue "all homosexuals on behalf of and as the agent of God and his son our lord the savior Jesus Christ" or something.  That case was tossed out of court for failure to state a claim.  No lawyer could spin that into a well pled case.
•  The answer is simply the initial response of the defendant to the complaint.  It also doesn't need to be detailed and it doesn't need to be internally consistent either.  The job of the attorney writing the answer is to consider possible scenarios should the case proceed to trial.  In the answer, the attorney will try to include possible defenses to various scenarios that may come to pass.  So, Duggar denied the facts alleged by Dillon and also gave some general theories of defense 1) I never met her and was not in that place at that time, 2) even if I HAD been there with her, she was engaging in prostitution so her claims should fail, 3) even if I WAS there and you CAN be held responsible for sexually assaulting someone engaged in prostitution, she consented to what I did, 4) even if I WAS there and you CAN assault a hooker in a paid encounter and she did NOT consent, the harm she claims wasn't from any of that, but from the actions of this third party she failed to name.  Etc.  The defendant/respondent is not trying to prove any of this is true, they are simply denying any acts they claim not to have committed and then laying out various defenses they might use should the case proceed to trial.  
• Discovery is the process by which the parties exchange information they will need to prepare for any trial.  The attorneys are largely supposed to do this independent of tons of monitoring by the court.  So, one side says "I want x, y, and z" and the other side is supposed to either turn x, y, and z over OR possibly file a motion with the court if a request is unreasonable or is something they feel they should not need to comply with.  Once discovery is complete, both sides should have a good sense of what evidence the opposition might present in court.  This allows them to frame the actual legal arguments they will use should things go to trial.  The discovery deadline for this case is some time in March I believe (and they often get extended).

So, at this point there is nothing odd about the fact that Josh is saying "I wasn't there, but if I was it was all just fine" or whatever.  That is what he should be doing basically.  The tricky part in a case like this is that the jury is supposed to come into the situation with basically no information.  They are supposed to decide the case based on what they see and hear in the courtroom during the trial.  It may be hard to empanel a jury that has not heard a bunch of things about the case.  For example, my friend said she had not heard that Duggar was being sued.  She does know, however, that a "porn star" is suing some "christian family values guy" and the guy is saying he wasn't there.  Even if the jury pool tries to be totally honest during jury selection, it is hard in a case with supermarket tabloid headlines to empanel a jury that is truly untainted by "worldly information" about the case.  If someone on the jury knows on some level that Duggar denied these claims and then he winds up going with a defense that says he was there but she consented, that tainting of that juror could be hard for Duggar to overcome (if, of course, Dillon even succeeds in proving all the elements of her case).

[QuiverDance]

On 1/29/2016 at 4:09 PM, justoneoftwo said:

 

Alternatively, these are defenses people use with almost every case.  

Those are pretty boilerplate.

[CTRLZero]

The first footnote in the Memo in Support of Defendant's 2nd Motion to Compel is a wonderful bit of snark.  She's apparently having a much better time being out and about than Josh is in rehab.  It looks like Josh has shown Danica his, but she isn't showing him hers.  Thanks for posting the latest documents, Happy Atheist.

[2manyKidzzz]

Read the In Touch article today at Target. Revealing picture of DD adds a real touch for the Duggies wholesome image I'm sure. 

It is a very tawdry read. Love that  word. Naughty Joshley. 

[TheSilverTongue]

On 1/28/2016 at 1:20 AM, Whoosh said:

I don't want to try to speak to this as any type of former professional or expert, as the rules and laws surrounding the client-therapist privilege can get quite complex and I don't want to misspeak.  So, take everything I am going to say with a grain of salt.

To the best of my knowledge and recollection, the client-therapist privilege does indeed apply to civil cases.  I agree that it is horrifying to think otherwise.  If a therapist receives a subpoena for therapy records, I believe the standard practice is to either obtain permission from the client to share those records OR to file a motion to quash citing client-therapist privilege and any other privilege that may possibly protect the record.  The court will then typically hold a hearing to determine if anything about the situation warrants overriding any privilege and forcing the disclosure of those records.  Again, I am not entirely clear on the details of this and I do know that situations can arise where a therapist might have to chose between following the ethical imperative to maintain confidentiality vs complying with a court order to disclose.  I think that would be a very rare situation, but again I don't really know. A similar situation people may be more familiar with is when a reporter is ordered to disclose or reveal a source.  If they are ordered to inform the court of something like that and they opt to follow the ethical guidelines of their profession and refuse, they can be jailed for contempt of court until they comply with the court order.

Mental health professionals are often trained in record keeping methods that place the rights and privacy of the client at the forefront.  From my experience, therapists are advised to keep official records in a manner that would protect the right to privacy of their client should those official records somehow wind up in the hands of the court or opposing counsel.  So, for example, a therapist might keep official records of treatment in the official computer system of the hospital or clinic that are very vague and general and contain information needed for insurance, etc.  At the same time, they may keep a personal or private diary in which they record thoughts from their day, personal to-do lists, doodles, and quick notes on client sessions that they wish to record for some personal reason.

Like I said, it can get complex and I am just speaking generally here.

You're assuming this is real therapy from a licensed, legitimate practitioner, with ethical standards. More likely Josh's therapist a high school drop out with a Bible who thinks that Jesus and blaming the woman will cure adultery. 

The Duggars are pretty anti-psychology and anti-mental health in that respect. They think being gay or trans is a disease and their idea of therapy for a child sex abuser is yard work at Jesus camp. 

Maybe his therapist is a "therapist" in the way Jana is a "concert pianist".  

[Whoosh]

So here is what I have been trying, but failing to say to some extent.  (emphasis mine)

Harms alleged in Dillon's complaint: 11/17/15

• As a direct result of Defendant's actions, Plaintiff has suffered considerable emotional and physical damages. Plaintiff is currently being treated for severe anxiety similar to PTSD by a psychiatrist due to Defendant's violent and outrageous conduct.  Further, Plaintiff has been unable to work IN HER CHOSEN FIELD as a direct consequence of Defendant's actions.
• Wherefore Plaintiff demands that Defendant be found liable for intentional battery of Plaintiff and requests damages in excess of $500,000 be imposed upon Defendant.
• Wherefore Plaintiff demands that Defendant be found liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress due to his outrageous and violent conduct toward Plaintiff and further Plaintiff requests damages in excess of $500,000 be imposed upon Defendant.

Duggar's interpretation in his Memorandum to Support Second Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Initial Disclosures: 1/19/16

• Plaintiff has alleged she has required medical treatment and been UNABLE TO WORK SINCE BEING INJURED IN APRIL 2015.

Judge's order:

• Defendant's second motion DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE (failure to follow court rules)
• Plaintiff shall immediately produce her present medical records and bills and evidence of LOST BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES supporting her damages claim to the Defendant's councel TO BE HELD BY ALL COUNCEL FOR ATTORNEY'S EYES ONLY UNTIL FURTHER COURT ORDER.

So, the Judge is ordering Dillon to prove THE HARMS SHE ACTUALLY ALLEGED, not the harms Duggar claims she alleged IMMEDIATELY.  While it isn't certain, since Dillon was ordered to produce her medical records and bills and evidence of lost business opportunities IMMEDIATELY and it has been 13 days, it is quite possible that those disclosures have indeed been made.  We won't necessarily hear anything about that, as that has been ordered to be held FOR ATTORNEY'S EYES ONLY.  Further, it would do Duggar's side no good to leak or announce the fact that those disclosures had been made.

The Judge has also ordered that a memorandum be filed by DILLON explaining why the case involved AT LEAST $75,000.  This memo is to be filed by 2/11/16 at the latest.  

So, what does that mean?  Dillon needs to prove that the amount in controversy (possible damages) exceeds $75,000 OR THE REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT is inappropriate.  The damages Dillon seeks to recover are NOT limited to her medical costs and lost business opportunities (for which she has likely already disclosed documentation).  In an intentional tort of this nature, here are the types of damages that are possible in most (maybe all) states:

*Note - none of this means that the alleged torts occurred OR that Dillon suffered any actual harms OR that Dillon has any evidence of anything that may have occurred.  This is simply what is going on in this case

Special Compensatory Damages

Special damages compensate for monetary expenses incurred because of an injury. They are unique to the individual victim and vary significantly from one party to the next. An award of special damages should make a victim whole for expenses incurred or for money lost due to the incident or accident that caused their injuries.

Special damages cover any expense or loss related to an injury, and there is no limit to the types of special damage claims that can be made, or to the amount an injured party can claim. Some of the more common types of special damages are:

loss of earnings

loss of future earnings

medical bills

cost of future medical care

household expenses, and

costs associated with cancelled trips or altered plans

General Compensatory Damages

General damages compensate an injured individual for non-monetary damages incurred in an injury claim. They are called general damages because they address harm that is typically or “generally” sustained in an injury. All personal injury victims are expected to have at least some general damages. The most common types of general damages are:

pain and suffering

mental anguish, and

loss of consortium or companionship  

 

Punitive Damages

Punitive damages are only awarded to an injured plaintiff when the wrongful behavior of the defendant was despicable or reprehensible. A common scenario where punitive damages are awarded arises when a defendant is found guilty of wanton or malicious acts or of fraud. These acts might include aggravated battery, sexual assault, or fraudulent behavior that causes widespread financial harm. Occasionally, in high-profile injury cases such as those involving defective products or health risks linked with prescription drugs, juries will award punitive damages against product manufacturers and other defendants who have "deep pockets." 

 

http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/personal-injury/types-of-compensation.html

http://tmz.vo.llnwd.net/o28/newsdesk/tmz_documents/1118-josh-duggar-tmz-doc-small.pdf (Dillon Complaint)

Documents filed by Duggar and one court order can be found in the Duggar Document thread 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[wildcatgrrl]

On 1/27/2016 at 4:39 PM, ShebrewDefrauder said:

I'll out myself here as a bistitchual! I am both a proud knitter (continental!) and a proud hooker, and I love them equally! And I know amongst my knitting friends there is also always the argument over circular needles vs. double pointed needles when working in the round. I am a fan of circulars and using the Magic Loop method, but I also have DPNs for when they are necessary to finish projects off. When it comes to crochet, I think the biggest dispute is usually over pencil style grip and knife-style grip. I've been trying to use pencil since it's supposed to be easier on the wrist but I am finding it close to impossible since I'm so used to the knife grip. Sorry not sorry to drag the conversation yet still away from Joshley's legal indiscretions. 

I had to switch because the knife grip hurt too much...my fingers, though, not my wrist. It took some getting used to but pencil grip is much easier on my fingers.

[Whoosh]

I am including a link to the court information, but I can not see the document.  It appears that on Monday, February 1, 2016 Dillon's attorney has filed the following:

MOTION to Withdraw Complaint Without Prejudice filed by ASHLEY STAMM-NORTHUP.Certificate of Service.(FRUMER, MARC)

The without prejudice part means that, if the court grants the motion to withdraw without prejudice, Dillon would be free to refile the case at some point in the future.  I am doubtful that that would ever come to pass for a variety of reasons.  There is, of course, the possibility that Dillon's story is true and she is withdrawing her complaint because she realizes she is unable to present evidence to support each element of her claim (which happens in many, many REAL instances of sexual assault).  It is also possible that she has withdrawn the complaint for a variety of other reasons.  One could be that her attorney is unable to move forward at this time, but I highly doubt that.  Obviously, a very real possibility is that her allegations have been false.  I think everyone has known that was always been a real possibility.

Anyway, she has had the opportunity present her case to the court and she has failed to do so.  Since vulnerable populations who are unlikely to be believed are FREQUENTLY targeted by sex offenders AND since it is estimated that roughly 80% or more of victims of sexual assault in the USA never report the incident, I firmly believe it is important to allow people who do come forward with these types of claims to have their chance in court before tearing them to shreds over assumptions, misunderstanding of the law, etc.  She has had that chance.  

I hope everyone really understands that her ability to prove her claims was NOT about having to prove she was unable to work AT ALL, NOT about whether you agree with her morality or the wiseness of her choices, etc.  I don't think she EVER cared if people thought she knowingly slept with married men.  Saying she didn't would likely hurt her career.  Sex workers are NOT responsible for preventing men from cheating.  Women are NOT to blame for the inappropriate sexual behavior of men.  

Plenty of REAL VICTIMS will delay reporting the incident, will not be embarrassed to admit they sleep with married men, might try to hide that fact for some reason, will make choices you think are just nutters like "going back for more", will be seen "working, being busy, and having fun" in the year following an assault, etc.  They already don't come forward largely for fear of not being believed, being slut shamed, etc.  The attacks on this woman for the past five months (from August 26th on) while there was NO CLEAR EVIDENCE either way will continue to be far less than ideal in my eyes.  You don't have to blindly believe someone in order to avoid nitpicking their lives and attacking them (on grounds that are shaky at best), which in effect is attacking the veracity of the claims of all victims who might stand in similar shoes at some point.  You can always simply reserve judgment.  I am sure many won't agree with me and that is fine.  That said...

The impacts of false claims are truly horrific for both actual victims and those falsely accused.  So it is what it is at this point.  If her claims are entirely fabricated, she deserves whatever is coming her way I guess (though the backlash will likely have a chilling effect on other women with weak but REAL cases who consider coming forward).  Really, whether her allegations were true or false, all this will have a chilling effect of the reporting of sexual assault.  That is tragic either way.

I am hoping someone else can access the motion to withdraw the complaint to share more information.  

 

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/10202187/STAMMNORTHUP_v_DUGGAR

 

ETA - it is being reported and they appear to have read the motion.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3427531/Danica-Dillon-wants-drop-rough-sex-case-against-former-19-Kids-Counting-star-Josh-Duggar.html

http://www.tmz.com/2016/02/01/josh-duggar-porn-star-lawsuit/

[batuityma]

3 hours ago, Whoosh said:

<snip>

ETA - it is being reported and they appear to have read the motion.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3427531/Danica-Dillon-wants-drop-rough-sex-case-against-former-19-Kids-Counting-star-Josh-Duggar.html

http://www.tmz.com/2016/02/01/josh-duggar-porn-star-lawsuit/

"...her lawyers apparently contacted the 27-year-old's legal team to see if they would consider the dismissal...but they turned them down.

Josh's lawyers said they would only agree if she dropped her case forever, took to social media to retract her allegations and paid Josh's legal bills"

Ok, I'm so clueless about all this legal stuff. So a plaintiff is not allowed to drop a case without having the other side agree to it? Is that correct? I understand why Josh's side would object to the "without prejudice" part. They want this matter closed for good. But what if she takes that part out and just wants to drop it altogether. Is she not allowed to do that without approval? I had no idea it worked that way.

[Whoosh]

10 minutes ago, batuityma said:

"...her lawyers apparently contacted the 27-year-old's legal team to see if they would consider the dismissal...but they turned them down.

Josh's lawyers said they would only agree if she dropped her case forever, took to social media to retract her allegations and paid Josh's legal bills"

Ok, I'm so clueless about all this legal stuff. So a plaintiff is not allowed to drop a case without having the other side agree to it? Is that correct? I understand why Josh's side would object to the "without prejudice" part. They want this matter closed for good. But what if she takes that part out and just wants to drop it altogether. Is she not allowed to do that without approval? I had no idea it worked that way.

To be honest I have absolutely no clue how that part works.  I wrote my post and was just about ready to throw her under the must be totally and completely guilty bus, but then I read those articles.  I can't imagine why she would be doing what she is doing right now if she literally had nothing in the way of evidence (whether anything happened or not - evidence doesn't always go hand in hand with truth).  

All I know at this point is I don't blame Duggar (regardless of what may or may not have happened in the past) for not wanting to go forward with the threat of her refiling hanging over his head.  Honestly, I don't like the idea of that at all.  IDK.  Maybe someone with experience with this type of thing will happen by.  

It does make sense that, once each side has sunk considerable expense into the lawsuit that she can't just drop it without at least offering to pay his legal fees.  Again, very confusing to me at this early hour.

[Whoosh]

The only two things that are making sense to me are either that the tabloids are not accurate and maybe some type of settlement is under way.  If that were the case, Dillon might withdraw the complaint but want leave to refile if Duggar didn't follow through with the settlement arrangement.  OR, maybe Duggar is filing a counterclaim like we thought he might.  

But honestly - I am just guessing at things that would make some kind of sense.  

[socalrules]

I highly doubt there has been a settlement. No lawyer with common sense would try and dismiss their client's complaint without the settlement agreement having been fully executed and the funds having already been exchanged. Only then would you file a dismissal. Plus, if there had been a settlement, the dismissal would be with prejudice. That is bad lawyering unless the settlement may be over time but usually there is some provision in the settlement agreement to deal with that issue. Further, in many states, you would at least file a notice of settlement with the court, which wouldn't state the specifics of the settlement but just that it has occurred.

My guess is that Danica's lawyer has convinced her that she is unable to provide enough evidence to sustain her causes of action. It's not necessarily that her allegations aren't true, just that she has no way of proving it. 

Also, if there has been no settlement, I am unclear as to why she is asking Josh's permission to dismiss without prejudice. Is her complaint still in PA court or had it already been removed to federal? I am not very familiar with federal law but in my state, I can dismiss with, or without prejudice, without having to request permission of defendant as it is my complaint. They don't have to signed off on it. The only problem would arise if I agreed to dismiss with prejudice and say I accidentally checked the without prejudice box. I don't see why she would need his permission to dismiss. 

[Whoosh]

37 minutes ago, socalrules said:

I highly doubt there has been a settlement. No lawyer with common sense would try and dismiss their client's complaint without the settlement agreement having been fully executed and the funds having already been exchanged. Only then would you file a dismissal. Plus, if there had been a settlement, the dismissal would be with prejudice. That is bad lawyering unless the settlement may be over time but usually there is some provision in the settlement agreement to deal with that issue. Further, in many states, you would at least file a notice of settlement with the court, which wouldn't state the specifics of the settlement but just that it has occurred.

My guess is that Danica's lawyer has convinced her that she is unable to provide enough evidence to sustain her causes of action. It's not necessarily that her allegations aren't true, just that she has no way of proving it. 

Also, if there has been no settlement, I am unclear as to why she is asking Josh's permission to dismiss without prejudice. Is her complaint still in PA court or had it already been removed to federal? I am not very familiar with federal law but in my state, I can dismiss with, or without prejudice, without having to request permission of defendant as it is my complaint. They don't have to signed off on it. The only problem would arise if I agreed to dismiss with prejudice and say I accidentally checked the without prejudice box. I don't see why she would need his permission to dismiss. 

I am not trying to be rude or argumentative, but if people insist on responding this way to my best faith efforts to help people to understand what is going on in this situation, I am not sure what to say, really.  This IS something that is done during settlement negotiations and when settlements are expected to occur over time.  You can say you "highly doubt" what I suggested is happening and you can call it "bad lawyering" only done by people with no "common sense", but it IS DONE and often for good cause.

YES, if the settlement were complete, it would be RES JUDICATA, not leaving the door open to refile.  That is why I said "maybe some type of settlement is UNDER WAY".  I chose my words carefully.

YES, as I said it may well be a lack of evidence (regardless of the truth of the claims).  I agree that is ONE possibility and is in fact the first one I mentioned.

 

To your last paragraph - she doesn't seem interested in withdrawing with prejudice and therefore no option to file again if you ask me.  That is my thought. The case is currently in the Federal Courts, but Dillon was to have filed a motion to support the fact that there was at least $75,000 in controversy in order to JUSTIFY the removal to federal court.  She was supposed to do that by 2/11/16.

Are you saying you can opt to withdraw without prejudice and you don't need either the agreement of the defendant OR the permission of the judge?  I guess that last paragraph is just confusing to me as you are saying you don't need the agreement of the defendant, but then you say "if I had agreed to X and checked Y by mistake".  At any rate, if you are saying that indeed you can single-handedly withdraw a complaint without prejudice, perhaps the case really already has been withdrawn without prejudice by the mere fact that she filed the motion?  I had the sense that it was something that either 1) the parties had to agree upon or 2) the judge had to grant the motion once it was made.

____________________

"Settlement negotiations

The term "without prejudice" is used in the course of negotiations to settle a lawsuit. It indicates that a particular conversation or letter cannot be tendered as evidence in court. It can be considered a form of privilege.[6] This usage flows from the primary meaning: concessions and representations made for purpose of settlement are simply being mooted for that purpose, and are not meant to actually concede those points in litigation.

Such correspondences must both be made in the course of negotiations and a genuine attempt to settle a dispute between the parties. A prohibition exists on documents marked "without prejudice" being used as a façade to conceal facts or evidence from the court. As a result, documents marked "without prejudice" that do not actually contain any offer of settlement may be used as evidence, should the matter proceed to court. Courts may also decide to exclude from evidence communications not marked "without prejudice" that do contain offers of settlement.[7][8]

The term "without prejudice save as to costs" is a change to the above and refers to a communication that cannot be exhibited in court until the end of the trial, when the court awards legal costs to the successful party. This is also called the Calderbank formula, from Calderbank v Calderbank (2 All E.R. 333 (1976)),[9] and exists because English courts have held that "without prejudice" includes for the purposes of costs, as in Court of Appeal, in Walker v. Wilshire (23 QBD 335 (1889)):

Letters or conversations written or declared to be "without prejudice" cannot be taken into consideration in determining whether there is a good cause for depriving a successful litigant of costs."

 

[Fascinated]

@Whoosh, thank you for investing so much time attempting to edify us on the workings of the law, and how it applies to this case. Fascinating stuff. Thanks to everyone for this interesting and informative discussion. 

[Whoosh]

24 minutes ago, Fascinated said:

@Whoosh, thank you for investing so much time attempting to edify us on the workings of the law, and how it applies to this case. Fascinating stuff. Thanks to everyone for this interesting and informative discussion. 

LOL at myself - thanks @Fascinated.  I have had a lot of couch time this month and I will stop by this thread and see that Dillon has said she has lost job opportunities for a period of time and then Duggar's attorney spins that into CAN'T DO ANY form of work at ALL (apparently to some posters on here that means for 9 or 10 months at least) and then the JUDGE orders her to provide evidence of lost job opportunities and people cheer for how Duggar is proving that prostitute has NOTHING because they saw her appearing to be busy and having fun online.  It is just bizarre.  If I weren't stuck on the couch, I might not notice, but I am.

Who knows, maybe she HAS nothing and it will be over with this motion

[socalrules]

I completely understand with or without prejudice. I also understand what goes on during settlement negotiations as I have been there many times. I stand by my statement that it is bad lawyering to dismiss a complaint where there has been a settlement but the settlement agreement has not been fully executed and money exchanged. The threat of going to trial is what keeps people trying to settle and complete the settle the process once a settlement has been reached.  I am speaking from my personal experience. I work in insurance defense and would be fired for dismissing a complaint without the settlement being complete. Maybe it is different in other types of law but it would be worrisome for me either way. 

As to the dismissal itself, what I was trying to convey is that, at least in my state, I don't need permission from the opposing party to dismiss my client's complaint with, or without, prejudice. Further, the only time the other party may have an issue is if I filed a request for dismissal without prejudice, when had agreed to dismiss with prejudice. As to checking a box, in my state, California, a request for dismissal is just a form you fill out and submit to the court for it to sign off on. You check off with or without prejudice . I have never had a problem with the court in signing off on it nor had to explain why I am doing so. It is likely different in Federal Court where I have little experience, otherwise I cannot understand why she is asking opposing party's permission to file a dismissal. I am not trying to be argumentative but I guess my wording was not clear as it should have been. 

[QuiverDance]

I'd think they settled, except if they'd settled, the dismissal would be with prejudice. So, this could be a Duggar win.  Or perhaps the dismissal is without prejudice and the settlement documents (if there are any) make provisions that would prevent the refiling of any claim, and the plaintiff was allowed to dismiss without prejudce so that BOTH parties could save face.  (A dismissal with prejudice would telegraph to the media that a settlement had taken place.)