The language that authorized the application of this rule as a means of terminating a non-judicial action on the merits is deleted if the applicant did not result in a burden of proof in presenting the applicant`s case. The institution is replaced by the new provisions of Article 52, point (c), authorizing the pronouncement of a judgment against the defendant and the applicant, before the end of the proceedings of the party subject to the decision. An application for rejection under Rule 41, on the basis that an applicant`s evidence is legally insufficient, should now be treated as a request for a decision on partial findings under Rule 52, point c. If you decide to dismiss the case, you must decide whether the court should dismiss it “prejudiced” or “unprejudiced.” When section 23 was amended in 1966, Rules 23.1 and 23.2 were separated from Rule 23. Rule 41 bis (1) was not amended to reflect changes to Rule 23. In 1968, Rule 41 A( (1) was amended to correct the reference to the rule that had become section 23, point e), but Rules 23.1 and 23.2 were unintentionally neglected. Rules 23.1 and 23.2 are now added to the list of exceptions to Rule 41 (a) (1) (A). This change has no impact on the defined meaning. Rule 23.2 expressly contains Rule 23 e and has therefore already been directly included in the exceptions to Rule 41, point a) (1). Rule 23.1 requires judicial authorization of a compromise or dismissal in a language, in parallel with Rule 23 e), thus replacing the manifest right of dismissal by dismissal. Sua power sponte of the court A court has the inherent power to dismiss an action with prejudice when it is boring, put in bad faith or if it has not been prosecuted within a reasonable time.
Where an applicant who has opened an action does not comply with the means of investigation, a court that has issued the compliance order may dismiss the case with prejudice. Defendant`s Request A defendant may apply to a court to dismiss the CAUSE OF ACTION if the plaintiff has not come forward to follow his case. An applicant is required to follow the action with due diligence within a reasonable period of time after the action has been opened. In the event of serious prejudice to the defendant in the preparation of his case or serious prejudice to the defendant`s rights, the defendant may seek termination with prejudice. Dismissal is not granted if the non-prosecution results from unavoidable circumstances such as the death of the applicant and if there is a delay in the appointment of a staff representative to pursue the appeal. If the parties try to negotiate a settlement of the controversy, the resulting delays in reaching an agreement will not serve as the basis for bias-based dismissal. However, if a plaintiff delays the prosecution on the basis of the mere possibility of a transaction, without establishing concrete efforts to reach an agreement, a court may, at the defendant`s request, order a termination. (b) involuntary dismissal; effect. If the plaintiff does not follow or comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may dismiss the complaint or action against him. Unless otherwise stated in the dismissal order, dismissal under that division (b) and any dismissal that is not subject to this rule – with the exception of dismissal for incompetence, incompetence or omission of the party under Rule 19 – is considered an assessment on the merits.
Accordingly, the applicant and the defendant agree that this procedure should be dismissed and that the defendants should hereafter accept the defendant or parties (s) to use all necessary and proportionate decisions, judgments and decisions to make this provision and agreement without further announcement.