海明狠狠地炒作了一番起诉腾讯及其CEO。我曾写了篇《海明不要再忽悠网民了,起诉腾讯来点实的》以及《海明起诉腾讯又有被RULE 11制裁的危险 》。但上星期,海明递交了一份文件(Doc. 7),里面就一句话:“PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the above captioned action has been discontinued without prejudice.” 这个without prejudice是什么含义,各位读者现在应该明白了。
在海明的状纸中,他哭诉文革期间,还是婴儿的他几乎被红卫兵“abuse"致死,如今又被腾讯欺骗,等等。但法官似乎没有被这番哭诉打动。海明虽已撤诉,法官却不是简单批准了事,而是在批文中出乎寻常的加了一段话,基本上是说,海明又在瞎闹。
03/13/2012 | | NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Ming Hai (Hai, Ming) (Entered: 03/13/2012) |
03/14/2012 | | ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Pursuant to the Notice of Discontinuance filed by Plaintiff 7 dated March 12, 2012, the above-captioned case is hereby dismissed without prejudice. The Court notes that although Plaintiff purportedly brought this action "individually and on behalf of all similarly situated in North America," it is "well settled in this circuit that pro se plaintiffs cannot proceed as class representatives." McLeod v. Crosson, No. 89-cv-1952, 1989 WL 28416, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 1989). See also Iannaccone v. Law, 142 F.3d 553, 558 (2d Cir. 1998) ("Because pro se means to appear for one's self, a person may not appear on another person's behalf"); Daniels v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., No. 04-cv-734S, 2004 WL 2315088, at *1 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 2004) ("Non-attorneys cannot represent anyone other than themselves and cannot prosecute class actions on behalf of others"); Johnson v. Newport Lorillard, No. 01-cv-9587, 2003 WL 169797, at *1, n.4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 23, 2003) ("It is plain error for a pro se inmate to represent other inmates in a class action.") (quotation omitted). Ordered by Judge William F. Kuntz, II on 3/14/2012. (Rowe, David) (Entered: 03/14/2012) |
博主二维码,光标右键点图片可下载