Kate Gosselin has dropped a major lawsuit against her ex-husband Jon Gosselin, who she had previously accused of conspiracy, theft and defamation.
In a surprising turn of events, she dismissed the suit with prejudice against her former spouse, barring her from bringing further action on the same claim.
Dismissal with prejudice is considered a final judgment.
It is not clear why Kate decided to let Jon off the hook, although he vehemently denied any involvement in the tell-all book that this all stems from.
Kate Gosselin did not release Jon's co-defendant, Robert Hoffman, author of Kate Gosselin: How She Fooled The World, from the pending lawsuit.
He is alleged to have illegally tapped and accessed Kate’s computer without her authorization. A motion filed in U.S. District Court Tuesday states:
“Plaintiff Kate Gosselin agrees to dismiss with prejudice all claims and potential claims that she has or may have against Defendant Jonathan K. Gosselin."
“By this motion, Plaintiff Kate Gosselin is not dismissing her claims against any Defendant other than Defendant Jonathan K. Gosselin."
In turn, “Defendant Jonathan K. Gosselin agrees to dismiss with prejudice all counterclaims or potential counterclaims that he has or may have against Plaintiff Kate Gosselin."
In August, Kate filed a sensational lawsuit against her ex-husband accusing him of wiretapping, computer hacking, identity theft and invasion of privacy.
“After the couple was separated, Jon illegally hacked into Kate’s email account and her phone and bank accounts,” Gosselin's lawsuit initially alleged.
Jon Gosselin "also stole a hard drive from Kate’s house, which contained private and confidential material," the suit continues, alleging that it was his master plan:
"Jon gave the contents of Kate’s email account and the hard drive, all of which were acquired illegality, to his friend and business partner, tabloid reporter Robert Hoffman."
The book was never published due to the controversy. However:
“Nevertheless, the damage was done with the release of the personal and private information and the defendants continue to possess this illegally obtained private information.”