I've been thinking about something..

I found this for you:


By contrast with prejudice means that a party's legal rights have in fact been determined and lost. To continue the same example, if instead the court had jurisdiction, but the plaintiff did not appear for the trial, the court would dismiss the case "with prejudice". That dismissal is a judgment against the plaintiff "on the merits" of the case, and extinguishes the claim that was being sued over. However, this does not prevent an appeal or a trial de novo if ordered by a higher court.

So from the looks of it, no they can't sell it off. Trial de novo appears to be more of a court ordered appeal and not the plaintiff. I would think that if they did sell it and you where sued again, you could have a nice lawsuit on your hands.

Interesting, thanks so much for the info!

Now on the other side of the coin, dismissal without prejudice means they could refile, yes? And what grounds would they have and is there a limit?

without prejudice is different. In my case and most likely my state, I got a judgment of dismissal, without prejudice. For them to bring it in court again they must show good cause to do so and the court will either allow or deny. If they bring it again and they get another dismissal, it is with prejudice.

I believe they also have only one year to appeal and then it can be with prejudice.