Legal Definitions - dismissed with prejudice

Dismissed with Prejudice

When a legal case is "dismissed with prejudice," it means the lawsuit has been permanently ended by the court, and the party who initiated the suit (the plaintiff) is forever barred from filing another lawsuit against the same defendant(s) based on the same claims or legal issues. This type of dismissal is a final judgment on the merits of the case, effectively closing the door on that specific legal dispute and preventing it from being brought before the court again.

• Example 1: Settlement Agreement

  Imagine Sarah sued a construction company for damages to her home, claiming faulty workmanship. After several months of legal proceedings, Sarah and the construction company reached a mutual agreement to settle the case out of court. As part of their settlement, they filed a joint motion with the court to have the case dismissed with prejudice. This means that once the settlement is finalized and the court issues the dismissal, Sarah cannot later change her mind and sue the same construction company again for the same alleged faulty workmanship, even if she feels she didn't get enough money, because the matter has been permanently resolved.

• Example 2: Repeated Failure to Comply with Court Orders

  Consider a situation where Mark filed a lawsuit against his former business partner. Throughout the litigation process, Mark repeatedly failed to attend scheduled court hearings, ignored deadlines for submitting required documents, and did not respond to discovery requests from the opposing side. After multiple warnings and opportunities, the judge, as a sanction for Mark's persistent non-compliance and disruption of the court's process, ordered the case to be dismissed with prejudice. This ruling prevents Mark from simply refiling the exact same lawsuit against his former business partner, as the court has made a final decision to end the matter due to his conduct.

• Example 3: Lack of Legal Merit

  Suppose a plaintiff, Mr. Henderson, sued a local municipality, claiming that a new city ordinance caused him emotional distress. After the initial stages of the lawsuit, the municipality's lawyers filed a motion arguing that even if all of Mr. Henderson's factual claims were true, they did not constitute a legally recognized cause of action for emotional distress under existing law. The judge reviewed the arguments and agreed, finding that Mr. Henderson's claims lacked legal merit. The judge then ordered the case to be dismissed with prejudice. This means Mr. Henderson cannot refile a new lawsuit against the municipality based on the same claim that the ordinance caused him emotional distress, as the court has already determined that such a claim is not legally viable and cannot proceed.