Answer

Hello and thanks so much for choosing this forum to pose your important legal question. I will do my best to give you some honest and accurate guidance as I answer your question.

 

1. I am a licensed attorney, and I will be glad to try and answer your question. I hope that the following information will be helpful to you, but please just write back if you have any follow-up questions or need clarification on anything after reviewing the following information. Thank you for taking the time to write back and supply the additional requested information, which was helpful to my analysis of your inquiry. I am truly sorry for what you have gone through here, and I hope that this matter gets resolved appropriately.
2. Based on what you have related here, I believe that what has taken place is the Judge has had enough of the creditor's non-compliance and has imposed the "death knoll" in civil cases -- namely order their pleadings stricken and dismissing the action. The authority for this is found in California Government Code § 68608(b) as cited by the Judge. The Superior Court of California, County of Shasta

   Local Rules of Court, effective January 1, 2009, addresses such situations in the context of civil case management and collection suits. More specifically, if you read starting at Rule 3.01 you can see the incorporation of the code provisions (statutes) as well as pertinent California Rules of Court.

3. The bottom line is a dismissal with prejudice is a complete victory and a dismissal without prejudice is a partial victory. If the case was dismissed "without prejudice," the creditor has the right to refile its case at a later date. By dismissing the previous case without prejudice, the Court gives the creditor the option to refile its case once it was ready to do so. If the case was dismissed "with prejudice," then the Court dismissed the case and also barred the creditor from refiling its case. Given your circumstances, I believe that it is very likely the Court intended the dismissal to be "with prejudice". However, I cannot say that with absolute certainty and would suggest nailing down the exact state of things. have included a couple of California Judicial Council forms (below) for your reference (non-fillable and fillable pdf forms). What this all boils down to is it certainly appears that the dismissal was intended to be "with prejudice", but to protect yourself against a future suit I would seek specification.

 

CIV-110*

CIV-110*

1/1/2007

Request for Dismissal

CIV-120*

CIV-120*

1/1/2007

Notice of Entry of Dismissal and Proof of Service

 

 

I hope that this information has been helpful to you. If we can be of any further assistance please free to use our service again. Best wishes for a successful outcome.

If my answer has been helpful to you, please click "ACCEPT" so that I may be paid. This is the only way that I will receive compensation for the work performed. Please consider clicking "BONUS" as a nice way of saying "thanks" for a job well done. Clicking "FEEDBACK" to leave your positive comments is always greatly appreciated.

The information provided is general in nature only and should not be construed as legal advice. By using this forum, you acknowledge that no attorney-client relationship has been created between you and Benjamin M. Burt, Jr., Esq. You should always consult with a lawyer in your state.