In the News, On the Bar Exam: Carano’s Case Proves Two Words Can Decide If a Claim Lives or Dies

When the news broke recently that The Mandalorian actress Gina Carano (who played Cara Dune in the Disney+ series) had settled her lawsuit against Disney and Lucasfilm, the headlines focused on the drama: a controversial firing, a high-profile case, and finally, a resolution.

But buried in the court filings was a phrase that may sound like mere legal jargon yet carries real weight: Carano agreed to dismiss her lawsuit with prejudice.

For lawyers and especially for law students preparing for the bar exam, that phrase "with prejudice" immediately signals something final. But what does it actually mean, and how does it differ from dismissing a case without prejudice?

Source: https://www.starwars.com/databank/cara-dune

What “With Prejudice” Really Means

When a lawsuit is dismissed with prejudice, it’s over—completely over. The plaintiff (in this case, Carano) cannot come back to court later and refile the same claims. It’s a final resolution on the merits, even if the court never held a full trial.

Think of it as closing the book and sealing it shut. For bar prep purposes, remember that a dismissal with prejudice triggers the doctrine of res judicata (i.e., the claim has been decided and cannot be relitigated). For Carano, that means she can’t later sue Disney again for wrongful termination based on the same facts. The case is done, once and for all.

What “Without Prejudice” Means

A dismissal without prejudice, on the other hand, leaves the door open. It’s as if the case is paused rather than permanently ended.

The plaintiff can usually refile their claims later—perhaps because of a procedural error, missing evidence, or a need to file in the correct court. On the bar exam, look for signals that a court is giving a party another chance to get it right. That’s without prejudice.

Imagine turning in a rough draft of a paper and being told to fix it and resubmit. Your opportunity isn’t gone, you just need to make corrections.

Why the Difference Matters in Carano’s Case

By agreeing to dismiss her lawsuit with prejudice, Carano signaled that this chapter of her dispute with Disney is closed. She won’t be refiling. The settlement represents a final resolution—something both sides wanted for different reasons:

• For Disney and Lucasfilm: This dismissal provided certainty and closure. It means the company does not need to worry about Carano filing the same claims again in the future, and it can put the dispute behind it permanently.

  
  

• For Carano: The dismissal allowed her to move forward without the weight of continuing legal battles. Both her professional career and her personal life can continue without the possibility of reopening the same lawsuit hanging over her.

Lucasfilm even went a step further in its public statement, noting: “Ms. Carano was always well respected by her directors, costars, and staff, and she worked hard to perfect her craft while treating her colleagues with kindness and respect. With this lawsuit concluded, we look forward to identifying opportunities to work together with Ms. Carano in the near future.”

That kind of statement underscores just how final a “with prejudice” dismissal can be. It closes the courtroom doors but can sometimes reopen professional ones.

For law students, this case is a reminder that two small words—with prejudice and without prejudice—can carry enormous weight, both in real-world litigation and on the bar exam. The Carano settlement shows how these phrases can shape outcomes beyond the courtroom. On your exams, pay attention to them. They often decide whether a claim lives or dies.