"Motion?  What motion?  Oh, that thing?  Wait, did we file that?  With the court?  Oh, geez, our bad.  Sorry about that.  Never mind."

So maybe plaintiffs' law firms Cohen Milstein and Berger & Montague can get back on the Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins Holiday card list after all after reportedly (per the WSJ Law Blog, as usual) withdrawing their motion in the GMH Communities Trust securities litigation just days after filing it.  As discussed here, the motion had stated that Lerach's client's  "choice of Lerach Coughlin as Proposed Lead Counsel raises serious questions and may be indicative of the fact that the pension fund is unfit to serve as Lead Plaintiff in this case."  The motion added that "Lerach's practices as class counsel are under intense scrutiny and could possibly result in additional indictments."

It certainly is curious why this bell was rung and then "unrung."  Is it the motions-practice equivalent of one of those objectionable questions trial lawyers ask for effect and then promptly "withdraw?"  Or is it just a mulligan?