It is not every day that a plaintiff tries and fails to dismiss his own case, which is opposed by the defendant. But it happens.
Associated Bank sought to foreclose on property and the bank named all interested secured creditors or other interested individuals (for example, heirs to the deceased property owner), including the United States of America (which, we assume, is owed some taxes by the estate of the property owner).
Lawyers for the U.S.A. removed the bank’s case from state court to federal court.
Associated Bank, reassessing its case strategy in light of the U.S.A.’s tactic and also in light of revised figures on the valuation of the water-damaged subject property, decided to dismiss its own case.
Not so fast.
U.S. District Court Judge Joan N. Ericksen (D. Minn.) did not find that Associated Bank was playing any underhanded games here (there was no “judge shopping,” for example, or subterfuge to avoid some upcoming adverse decision). Moreover, Judge Ericksen did not find that the U.S.A. was particularly prejudiced by Associated Bank’s change in strategy.
Nevertheless, Judge Ericksen conditioned Associated Bank’s dismissal on its hammering out an agreement to pay the U.S.A.’s attorneys fees and costs.