Steyn vs. Morrissey - case dismissed on May 11, 2015 following request for 'dismissal with prejudice

Updates found on the Orange County Superior Court site - a request for 'dismissal with prejudice' by Steyn on May 5 and the notification of case dismissal on May 11:


  • REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE - ENTIRE ACTION FILED BY STEYN, BRADLEY ON 05/05/2015 (4 page PDF)
  • CASE DISMISSED WITH DISPOSITION OF REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL 05/11/2015 NV
  • COMPLAINT DISPOSED WITH DISPOSITION OF REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL. 05/11/2015 NV



Related item:
 

Comments

davidt

Administrator
Staff member
Moderator
Subscriber
I'm no legal expert but from asking around a bit, I think it likely means there was some sort of settlement and adding the 'with prejudice' as part of the settlement so the case would end here. Steyn's lawyer could have requested it to be dismissed without that part if he just wanted to drop it.

so does this mean the whole thing went nowhere
 

bhops

Last of the famous international screw ups.
I'm no legal expert but from asking around a bit, I think it likely means there was some sort of settlement and adding the 'with prejudice' as part of the settlement so the case would end here. Steyn's lawyer could have requested it to be dismissed without that part if he just wanted to drop it.
Yeah Moz gave him a bag of crisps and a signed copy of 'Roy's Keen' and told him to fuck off. Steyn realizing he didn't have a leg to stand on gladly accepted and disappeared into the stratosphere.
 
Last edited:
A

Anonymous

Guest
Yeah Moz came him a bag of crisps and a signed copy of 'Roy's Keen' and told him to fuck off. Steyn realizing he didn't have a leg to stand on gladly accepted and disappeared into the stratosphere.
yeah this is what i was thinking as well. the whole with prejudice seemed to say im not gonna get anything real and don't want to keep paying my lawyer or will have to start to as the lawyer realizes hes not gonna get anything more in terms of settlement. i need it to stop now. im no lawyer either just a dilatant with a healthy interest in the law. glad to see it end though as the whole thing was just ugly all around and so unnecessary on everyones part
 

davidt

Administrator
Staff member
Moderator
Subscriber
We just don't know what the terms are at this point and likely never will if there is a confidentiality agreement. It's possible it went the other way or something in between, the preference seems to be for it to go away and the terms kept as quiet as possible.

Yeah Moz came him a bag of crisps and a signed copy of 'Roy's Keen' and told him to fuck off. Steyn realizing he didn't have a leg to stand on gladly accepted and disappeared into the stratosphere.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
We just don't know what the terms are at this point and likely never will if there is a confidentiality agreement. It's possible it went the other way or something in between, the preference seems to be for it to go away and the terms kept as quiet as possible.
true and fair enough. I wonder if this will hurt his chances of finding work in the field in the future. honest question as I just don't know if its a career killer or just par for the course
 

willnevermarry

New Member
I'm a California attorney, "with prejudice" means that the case is resolved and the plaintiff cannot file another suit based upon the same or similar facts. It would only be dismissed "with prejudice" if there was a settlement. Otherwise, the plaintiff would dismiss it "without prejudice" (i.e. he can file again within the statute of limitations). Who knows how much the settlement was for or who paid it. Moz could have had an insurance company who decided to settle it to avoid legal costs or if they believed there was some exposure to liability. But we are likely to hear nothing about the result absent a leak because there will be a confidentiality clause. Final note, a settlement does not necessarily mean that the plaintiff had anything real to complain about. Companies and individuals settle all of the time, because of the cost to fight and whether the evidence seems to support the plaintiff's complaint (even though the "real" facts do not).
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I'm a California attorney, "with prejudice" means that the case is resolved and the plaintiff cannot file another suit based upon the same or similar facts. It would only be dismissed "with prejudice" if there was a settlement. Otherwise, the plaintiff would dismiss it "without prejudice" (i.e. he can file again within the statute of limitations). Who knows how much the settlement was for or who paid it. Moz could have had an insurance company who decided to settle it to avoid legal costs or if they believed there was some exposure to liability. But we are likely to hear nothing about the result absent a leak because there will be a confidentiality clause. Final note, a settlement does not necessarily mean that the plaintiff had anything real to complain about. Companies and individuals settle all of the time, because of the cost to fight and whether the evidence seems to support the plaintiff's complaint (even though the "real" facts do not).
cool, thanks for the clarity
 

AgathaC

Member
probably too didn't want anything that could hold up the tour in US either. He could have put liens on any of Mozzer's property.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Well David, with a bit of luck, it will have scared Morrissey, and now he'll stop rambling drunkenly about you and this site like some would-be Crime boss (I think he'd like to of been Ronnie Kray), for his entourage's benefit, poolside.

...Or poodleside, rather. ROFL.

What's that, Mafiassey?
"-Parlaaa piuuu pianooo..."
Yeah, go hurt yourself, you pathetic pinhead.

But, you know, Morrissey STILL wonders why things go terribly, terribly wrong, sometimes. He simply can't connect the dots -connecting with dolts, now that, he can... -

Don't worry David, even if you never know the truth, personally I won't forget, that or the ban. Only in Morrissey's little world does it ever just "go away." And I don't live in it. :)

(No it's not a nightmare, Morrissey, it's the internet. No, you can't "fire it". No, you can't fire that either. No, pretty sure you can't fire anything, actually. Yes, it is sad.)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I'm a California attorney, "with prejudice" means that the case is resolved and the plaintiff cannot file another suit based upon the same or similar facts. It would only be dismissed "with prejudice" if there was a settlement. Otherwise, the plaintiff would dismiss it "without prejudice" (i.e. he can file again within the statute of limitations). Who knows how much the settlement was for or who paid it. Moz could have had an insurance company who decided to settle it to avoid legal costs or if they believed there was some exposure to liability. But we are likely to hear nothing about the result absent a leak because there will be a confidentiality clause. Final note, a settlement does not necessarily mean that the plaintiff had anything real to complain about. Companies and individuals settle all of the time, because of the cost to fight and whether the evidence seems to support the plaintiff's complaint (even though the "real" facts do not).
A simple google search clarifies futher:
with prejudice could indicate either misconduct on the part of the party who filed the claim or criminal complaint or could be the result of an out of court agreement or settlement, both of which would forbid that party from refiling the case.

So "with prejudice" could just as easily indiacate misconduct by Steyn rather than a settlement of any kind. I would even suggest given the nature of the wild allegations that this is more likely than a settlement. Perhaps he missed a deadline or didn't follow a process.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Well David, with a bit of luck, it will have scared Morrissey, and now he'll stop rambling drunkenly about you and this site like some would-be Crime boss (I think he'd like to of been Ronnie Kray), for his entourage's benefit, poolside.

...Or poodleside, rather. ROFL.

What's that, Mafiassey?
"-Parlaaa piuuu pianooo..."
Yeah, go hurt yourself, you pathetic pinhead.

But, you know, Morrissey STILL wonders why things go terribly, terribly wrong, sometimes. He simply can't connect the dots -connecting with dolts, now that, he can... -

Don't worry David, even if you never know the truth, personally I won't forget, that or the ban. Only in Morrissey's little world does it ever just "go away." And I don't live in it. :)

(No it's not a nightmare, Morrissey, it's the internet. No, you can't "fire it". No, you can't fire that either. No, pretty sure you can't fire anything, actually. Yes, it is sad.)

What a sad twat, you are. David got - and deserves - a ban. Every ticket states that the management/promoter/artist reserves the right not to admit. Don't you see you're doing PRECISELY what you're accusing Morrissey of? You're accusing him of acting as though he thinks he's in a Guy Ritchie movie, whereas you're acting like you're all in a fucking Oliver Stone conspiracy theory movie.

Clearly Steyn was on the make and it was a frivolous lawsuit - any fool could see that from reading the complaint papers. The case has been dismissed - if the Judge had thought there was a *serious* case to answer, it would not have been dismissed. Maybe Skinny can provide "legal clarity"...? Seriously, trolls aside, the cuntitude factor on this site massively increases whenever there's a sniff of legal proceedings. What happened to all those fake lawyers who were going to help David sue Morrissey...? That all collapsed too, didn't it?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I'm no legal expert but from asking around a bit, I think it likely means there was some sort of settlement and adding the 'with prejudice' as part of the settlement so the case would end here. Steyn's lawyer could have requested it to be dismissed without that part if he just wanted to drop it.

Not so - he could have realised he wasn't going to win and requested the "with prejudice part" as a means of ensuring that there was some kind of slur against Morrissey on record. Though M's lawyers could easily get that overturned. A private settlement would be recorded as such. A settlement would not be listed as a dismissal, with or without prejudice, because that's factually and legally inaccurate.

Basically it was a frivolous and implausible lawsuit that was never going to succeed. But keep spinning it your way if that makes you feel happier, David....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I think it's quite telling that the media usually picks up every little comment Moz makes and turns it into a big story and yet didn't fall for this story which they even got served on a silver platter. It is also telling that this site was nearly the only place that has regularly reported on this matter although even the people around here showed less and less interest over time.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Well David, with a bit of luck, it will have scared Morrissey, and now he'll stop rambling drunkenly about you and this site like some would-be Crime boss (I think he'd like to of been Ronnie Kray), for his entourage's benefit, poolside.

...Or poodleside, rather. ROFL.

What's that, Mafiassey?
"-Parlaaa piuuu pianooo..."
Yeah, go hurt yourself, you pathetic pinhead.

But, you know, Morrissey STILL wonders why things go terribly, terribly wrong, sometimes. He simply can't connect the dots -connecting with dolts, now that, he can... -

Don't worry David, even if you never know the truth, personally I won't forget, that or the ban. Only in Morrissey's little world does it ever just "go away." And I don't live in it. :)

(No it's not a nightmare, Morrissey, it's the internet. No, you can't "fire it". No, you can't fire that either. No, pretty sure you can't fire anything, actually. Yes, it is sad.)
They don't call him 'Silly Steven' for nothing you know ! Judge Weeks had three other names for him and they have stuck like shit to a blanket.
Solo 1 CrankFraud 0

How can someone so vegan sing the songs at F Y F FESTIVAL ?
Steven take a Steven take a bow
And boot the crime of this world in the crotch dear !

4ck Tosserrey t-shirt anyone ?

Benny-the-British-Butcher
 

willnevermarry

New Member
A quick Google search has led you astray. If you consult Google, you can find "authority" that you don't have to appear before a criminal court because it has fringes on the flag. The docket states that the plaintiff's attorney requested that that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice. You wouldn't do this without a settlement If there was a finding of misconduct, there would be a motion filed by the defendant and a ruling by the judge. None of this happened. A settlement happened. It doesn't mean Morrissey or anyone in his camp did anything wrong (they may have, we probably won't ever know).

A simple google search clarifies futher:
with prejudice could indicate either misconduct on the part of the party who filed the claim or criminal complaint or could be the result of an out of court agreement or settlement, both of which would forbid that party from refiling the case.

So "with prejudice" could just as easily indiacate misconduct by Steyn rather than a settlement of any kind. I would even suggest given the nature of the wild allegations that this is more likely than a settlement. Perhaps he missed a deadline or didn't follow a process.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
They don't call him 'Silly Steven' for nothing you know ! Judge Weeks had three other names for him and they have stuck like shit to a blanket.
Solo 1 CrankFraud 0

How can someone so vegan sing the songs at F Y F FESTIVAL ?
Steven take a Steven take a bow
And boot the crime of this world in the crotch dear !

4ck Tosserrey t-shirt anyone ?

Benny-the-British-Butcher


"I am Human and I Need to Be Loved... Just Line Everybody Else Does...."

I retract the aforementioned statement! Now where is my big block of cheeeeeseeeee?????

Benny-the-British-Butcher
 

Trending Threads

Top Bottom