Latest info that can be gleaned from the online docket shows TeamLaura has filed for another partial dismissal of requested actions that they raised in the second amended complaint. The previous partial dismissal request noted earlier ITT: The new one from earlier this month: 12/17/2013 Partial Dismissal (w/o Prejudice) (REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IN THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT SET FORTH IN PARAGRAPH 16 AT PAGE 6, PARAGRAPH 47 AT PAGES 22 - 23, AND PARAGRAPH 6 OF THE PRAYER FOR RELIEF AT PAGE 54 ONLY.) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner ----------- From the Revised Second Amended Complaint: http://www.scribd.com/doc/26348351/SAC-Revised Paragraph 16 - Plaintiff seeks damages for her emotional distress in a sum to be established according to proof. Further, Plaintiff seeks an injunction against forced abortions in violation of the right to privacy and reasonable attorney's fees according to proof. This claim is made for the public good and to discourage this outrageous conduct from continuing in the future. Paragraph 47 - Plaintiff seeks damages for her emotional distress in a sum to be established according to proof. Further, Plaintiff seeks an injunction against future confinement and deprivation of liberty by means of threats, coercion, and intimidation on the part of Defendants, and reasonable attorney's fees according to proof. This claim is made for the public good and to discourage this outrageous conduct from continuing in the future. Prayer for Relief Paragraph 6 - For injunctive relief preventing forced abortions, deprivation of liberty, and unfair and fraudulent business practices. ----------- While the previous request for a partial dismissal seemed rather tame and NBD, this new one seems a bit disconcerting. Although it's definitely way better than a settlement notice, I'm still just a wee bit sad to see this nonetheless. IANAL but this move makes me wonder - is TeamLaura trimming their impetus for a more narrowly focused strategy that will be easier to win at trial? Or is the weight of time and scilon lawfare tactics finally wearing on them? I'm hoping it's the former. (/i-haz-a-sad-speculation) Some info on what this newest partial dismissal relates to... From http://definitions.uslegal.com/i/injunctive-relief/ Injunctive relief consists of a court order called an injunction, requiring an individual to do or not do a specific action. It is an extraordinary remedy that courts utilize in special cases where preservation of the status quo or taking some specific action is required in order to prevent possible injustice. For example, in a custody case, an injunction may be used to prevent a party from removing a child from the country. Injunctive relief is an equitable remedy granted when money damages are not able to compensate the plaintiff's violation of rights if an injuction is not granted. Failure to comply with a notice of an injunction is punishable by being held in contempt of court. So the aspect of this case where they wanted to get permaban court orders telling Scientology to stop the worst of the Sea Org abuses will be off the table *IF* the judge grants this request. At least temporarily since the phrase "without prejudice" in the context of a dismissal seemingly means it can be resurrected later under a different action. From: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/without prejudice The inclusion of the term without prejudice in a judgment of dismissal ordinarily indicates the absence of a decision on the merits and leaves the parties free to litigate the matter in a subsequent action, as though the dismissed action had not been started. Therefore, a dismissal without prejudice makes it unnecessary for the court in which the subsequent action is brought to determine whether that action is based on the same cause as the original action, or whether the identical parties are involved in the two actions. Question(s) for lawfags - *IF* this is granted, is there a commonly done way for these injunctive relief requests to get resurrected and/or somehow come back into the picture at a later phase in the proceedings? Or can a judge order an injunction like what was originally proposed when he decides a case without it being officially stated as a cause of action? TIA!