I don't see why. Lawsuits are expensive, and as a plaintiff, you know you aren't guaranteed to win. So if you discover that your expected recovery (p of victory

I don't see why. Lawsuits are expensive, and as a plaintiff, you know you aren't guaranteed to win. So if you discover that your expected recovery (p of victory * the lesser of the expected damages or defendants' assets) is less than the cost of maintaining the suit, why wouldn't you drop it? Think about the consequences of automatically categorizing such plaintiffs as "vexatious litigants." You would have a bunch of plaintiffs in court who didn't want to be there, wasting their own time, the defendant's time, and the court's time. It seems to me that nobody would benefit from that rule except lawyers. Though if the lawyer is charging a contingent fee, they don't win either. (Of course there is a separate question of how far into the case should a plaintiff be able to drop the suit without forfeiting his right to bring it again later, but there is already a set of pretty fair and commonsense rules about this in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and state procedural rules. http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_41 http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_41) Sure, in this case Personal Audio's attempts to drop the suit might (or might not) be just another symptom of their general sleaziness, but this sort of maneuver is very common in all litigation, both legitimate and sleazy.