Found something interesting just now. In going back and researching our prior Dismissal (where the Court -- the same judge we're going to be facing in our current action, interestingly -- dismissed Countrywide/David Stern's foreclosure action against us for "lack of prosecution" (they didn't do anything on their case for 12 mos., as required by law), I was trying to come up with a hard copy of the letter that we were sent, where Judge Traynor dismissed the case.
The Court's dismissal: dated 6/12/2009, filed 6/16, and recorded with the County Clerk on 6/22.
However, I also turned up a 2nd document -- that can only be characterized as a "Well, I broke up with YOU, before YOU broke up with ME!" thing. Stern filed a motion to "voluntarily" dismiss their action against us, and gave no reason. It is dated 6/15/2009, filed 6/16, and recorded with the County Clerk on 6/22 -- mere hours after the Court's own dismissal (sorry, Charlie).
I'm not sure what this means, or what they could have even possibly been trying to pull with this stunt (they call themselves "the Prevailing Party" in it, even though the case was dismissed?), but I think it's worth sticking into our hip pockets, and even updating our Evidence list with.
The Stern "voluntary" dismissal tries to assert not only that they were the "prevailing party," but also says that they are dismissing the case "without prejudice." Not sure why they'd even do that, since aren't any Court-initiated dismissals for lack-of-prosecution under FL 1.420(e) basically "without prejudice" anyway?