Opinion ID: 610593
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Time-Bar Dismissal

Text: 35 The TGX Defendants seize on the district court's statement that Simmons did not voluntarily dismiss his § 10(b) claims under FED.R.CIV.P. 41 by asking the court to dismiss those claims without prejudice in August 1991. Simmons, 786 F.Supp. at 590. They argue that the court's statement is erroneous, and once we recognize that Simmons voluntarily dismissed his claims, we must hold that the claims were not dismissed as time barred under § 27A(b)(1). 36 But even if Simmons chose to dismiss his § 10(b) claims, the record conclusively establishes that he did so because Lampf rendered those claims time barred. The district court's August 1991 judgment states this very fact. We interpret dismissed as time barred in § 27A(b) to include all cases that were dismissed because of Lampf's time bar. Simmons satisfies this but-for scrutiny.