Dragonlance Dragonlance Lawsuit Dismissed Without Prejudice

The recent lawsuit brought against D&D publishers Wizards of the Coast by Dragonlance authors Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman has been voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.

When a lawsuit is dismissed with prejudice, it means that the plaintiff cannot bring the issue back to court. When -- as in this case -- it is dismissed without prejudice, the plaintiff can try again.

In this case it was voluntarily dismissed by Weis & Hickman. We can only guess why; perhaps a settlement occurred? In any case, Margaret Weis tweeted, thanking people for their support, and hinting at exciting news to come.

"Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Margaret Weis, LLC and Tracy Hickman hereby gives notice that the above-captioned action is voluntarily dismissed as to Wizards of the Coast LLC, without prejudice. Defendant Wizards of the Coast LLC has not filed an answer or motion for summary judgment, no proceedings or discovery have been undertaken as to these claims, and this action is not subject to any federal statute which would preclude the dismissal of this action under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i)."

 

[Voadam]

The title of the post, without context, could create the impression there was something wrong with the suit and it got tossed as a result.

A headline that can be taken to imply the opposite of what it tries to communicate can be improved.

The headline can be improved.

But, your characterization of it as "opposite" is not accurate either, because there is no clean opposite state.

I was surprised by your assertion of inaccuracy so I went back to re-read what I specifically wrote.

Upon reflection it does not seem inaccurate.

If the headline can be read to imply that this legal development is bad news for H&W the opposite of that would be this legal development is good news for H&W.

That would seem to be the case here.

W&H effectively dropped their case. Is the "opposite" of that the judge throwing it out? Or is the opposite of that their losing the case? Or is the "opposite" that the case continues? The law is not a set of cleanly diametrically opposed states.

Whether anything in the law can reasonably be characterized as opposites depends on the specifics. There are both more discrete and broader legal issues that can reasonably be described as opposite. A motion can be granted or denied which can reasonably be described as opposite results for example. Impressions of descriptions of legal developments can be the opposite of an intended point.

There's this thing where folks try to school others on language use, but are loose with language themselves. It doesn't make for convincing critique.

I agree.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I was surprised by your assertion of inaccuracy so I went back to re-read what I specifically wrote.

Upon reflection it does not seem inaccurate.

If the headline can be read to imply that this legal development is bad news for H&W the opposite of that would be this legal development is good news for H&W.

That would seem to be the case here.

Ugh.

The headline is accurate.

Whether or not it was good, or bad news, for W&H was not known at the time. Heck, given that the terms of the settlement may never be known and they may be putting a brave face on it, it may not be good news.

The lawsuit was dismissed. That means it is no longer active. It was dismissed without prejudice, which means it can be filed again. Reading the article provides you more details.

I infinitely prefer headlines that are actually accurate than headlines written by people that assume things about the underlying subject matter and/or the readership, and then write inaccurate headlines and articles.

 

[billd91]

Ugh.

The headline is accurate.

Yes, but adding the term “voluntarily“ significantly influences the reader’s understanding. And it’s no less accurate.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Yes, but adding the term “voluntarily“ significantly influences the reader’s understanding. And it’s no less accurate.

It's without prejudice.

In my personal opinion, there is a special circle of hell devoted to headline quibblers. The Sixth Circle is probably underpopulated now, so we can stick them there.

When the issue is, "Yes, the headline is 100% accurate, and the first sentence of the article conveys even more information, and the first sentence of the article is also displayed on the home page ... but there might be people who see the headline and start pontinficating without reading the article, or the first sentence, and that would be terrible ..." then that might be the worst form of headline pedantry.

Because given the sheer number of headlines that are incorrect, to argue with a headline that is actually correct seems odd.

 

[Eltab]

Headlining this thread "DragonLance Lawsuit Withdrawn" would be accurate, describe what happened, and give the casual reader a clearer understanding of the overall situation.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Headlining this thread "DragonLance Lawsuit Withdrawn" would be accurate, describe what happened, and give the casual reader a clearer understanding of the overall situation.

But no, that's not accurate. You are sacrificing accuracy.


EDIT: And more importantly, why is everyone feeling it necessary to argue with a completely accurate headline, that is further explained in the very first sentence and article? Given the huge number of articles that completely mangle basic concepts (in law, in science, in anything), this might be one of the most inane arguments ever.

 

[embee]

The recent lawsuit brought against D&D publishers Wizards of the Coast by Dragonlance authors Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman has been voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.

View attachment 130331

When a lawsuit is dismissed with prejudice, it means that the plaintiff cannot bring the issue back to court. When -- as in this case -- it is dismissed without prejudice, the plaintiff can try again.

In this case it was voluntarily dismissed by Weis & Hickman. We can only guess why; perhaps a settlement occurred? In any case, Margaret Weis tweeted, thanking people for their support, and hinting at exciting news to come.

"Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Margaret Weis, LLC and Tracy Hickman hereby gives notice that the above-captioned action is voluntarily dismissed as to Wizards of the Coast LLC, without prejudice. Defendant Wizards of the Coast LLC has not filed an answer or motion for summary judgment, no proceedings or discovery have been undertaken as to these claims, and this action is not subject to any federal statute which would preclude the dismissal of this action under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i)."

Hi.

Actual attorney here.

Voluntary dismissal without prejudice means, almost certainly, that there was some kind of settlement agreement.

"Voluntary dismissal" is when the plaintiff withdraws the complaint, often with consent of the defendant. Here, the voluntary dismissal was without consent of Hasbro/WOTC but nothing should be read into that because they hadn't interposed an Answer yet.

"Without prejudice" means that there has been no determination of any of the merits of the case. It could always be brought anew or the dismissal vacated on motion by the plaintiff.

The odds are pretty strong that there was either a limited license granted or some money exchanged. Who knows. The Green Poultice soothes many ills.

 

[embee]

I will speculate that the possibility of going to Court and paying money persuaded WotC that there was no inexpensive way to make the issue disappear.
So they agreed to (1) move forward with the project or (2) pay W&H to be finished. Based on Margaret's post, WotC probably overruled the roadblocking decision and will resume work on this DragonLance product.

I will speculate that Hasbro is a multibillion dollar global corporation with its own in-house counsel and this went through them before even being considered to get shipped out to Hale & Dorr and that this whole thing cost them precisely zero additional dollars.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Blame the switch to the Essentials release method for that. Dragonlance was going to be the next setting after Ravenloft (which work on that got repurposes into the Shadowfell thing they did) with a complete reboot of the setting and a new trilogy of novels starting with a brand new version of Dragons of Autumn Twilight written by Jim Butcher (Dresden Files, Codex Alera). He was going to have Tasselhoff not have the dagger he "borrowed" during their first fight on the way to the Inn of the Last Home, which means Flint would've been injured and the three of them delayed getting to the Inn until after Goldmoon and Riverwind arrived and all the ripple effect changes from there. He also had new concepts for the characters, like Raistlin inspired by Dr. Gregory House from the TV show House. The deal fell apart when Butcher learned that Weis and Hickman hadn't been consulted so he pulled out, and shortly after the 4e line was restructured and the release schedule scrapped.

Respect to Butcher for that.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Yeah, with the Heroes of the Lance, with the exception of Flint and Tanis, they all need to be younger. I could see Chris Pine playing Tanis, but as for Manganiello, if we're talking any sort of significant role, I think he'd be best as Ariakas.

How about Joe Manganiello as Caramon? He's older than Caramon would be in the series though. Really need actors in their upper twenties/low thirties at the most.