No Less An Authority Than The United States Supreme Court Says This Foreclosure Case Should Be Dismissed…Will This Court Follow That Directive?

Today’s battle for foreclosure and consumer justice moves to the northern front, Pasco County.
The issue is very clear.   The facts are not in dispute.   The bank in fact agrees with my analysis of their wrongdoing.
The only question is
Will the court, when presented with the stipulated facts, and the guidance and directive of both federal, state and in fact the United States Supreme Court grant dismissal of the case:
Traditionally, a plaintiff in such a dilemma has had an unqualified right, upon payments of costs, to take a nonsuit in order to file a new action after further preparation, unless the defendant would suffer some plain legal prejudice other than the mere prospect of a second lawsuit. Pleasants v. Fant, 22 Wall. 116, 122; Jones v. S.E.C., 298 U.S. 1, 19-20 and cases cited. Rule 41 (a) (1) preserves this unqualified right of the plaintiff to a dismissal without prejudice prior to the filing of defendant’s answer. And after the filing of an answer, Rule 41 (a) (2) still permits a trial court to grant a dismissal without prejudice “upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper.”