A motion by the court to dismiss all plaintiff's claims " with prejudice" AFTER a settlement had been reached by the parties would indicate a greater possibility of a satisfactory settlement for the plaintiff than a court ordered dismissal of " with prejudice" before a settlement had been reached. Since " with prejudice" indicates, in that case, that no further claims regarding that dispute can be brought against the defendant isn't it used as a tool by the defendant to settle and protect themselves from any further action.? Wouldn't that scenario indicate a high probability that the plaintiff got what it was interested in. I realize that a settlement is a mutual agreement between the parties, but wouldn't that indicate that the plaintiff was very satisfied with the settlement to agree to that term? Guidance v AT&T non-disclosure agreement so details are non existent. Guidance is affiliated with Spherix.
All responses would be appreciated
Rich
