On 4/27/2011 8:30 AM DEPT.M4 (where the Ristow case against Mike Ramos and the County of San Bernardino has been shipped--following it seems JUDGE FRANK GAFKOWSKI's reassignment) an EX-PARTE MOTION RE:DETERMINATION THAT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT BE ENTERED & a MOTION RE:FOR RECONSIDERATION BY PLAINTIFF (of the Ristow case's dismissal) is being heard (as well as apparently Defendants'MOTION RE:CORRECT JUDGMENT BY DEFT CO. OF SAN BERNARDINO). I am curious, is the clerk's entry "ON COURT'S MOTION, CASE ORDERED DISMISSED AS TO DEFENDANT COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, DISTRICT ATTORNEY MICHAEL A. RAMOS WITHOUT PREJUDICE" correct?
.
That would suggest another court might be jurisdictionally better/proper or the action is in some way premature/plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies (except the issue of exhausting administrative remedies is typically handled by a noticed motion from one of the parties and not the court sua sponte, unless there is a jurisdictional issue).
.
Also dismissing the case without prejudice, implies it can be refiled and contrary to the Mike Ramos press release, there has been no decision on the merits.
.
Why else would the court dismiss without prejudice?
.
This is sounding stranger by the moment. Unless it was jurisdictional, what in the world is the judge on his own motion doing?
.
Too bad the case did not stay in Dept 37 for Vander Feer to take a look at.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment