In a chaotic afternoon of courtroom maneuvers, a judge considered issuing a bench warrant to require an attorney representing a boy suing Brentwood Academy to appear in court.

But after the school's attorneys requested the warrant, Williamson County Circuit Court Judge Deanna Johnson decided against requiring an appearance by attorney Bureon Ledbetter.

During the first of three emergency court sessions Friday afternoon, Johnson said: "I’m going to give him notice. I’m not going to just put him in jail," in response to a question from Tara Swafford, an attorney representing Brentwood Academy.

Then Johnson ended the hearing. However, the judge and attorneys for Brentwood Academy reconvened about 25 minutes later.

Although Justin Gilbert, another attorney representing the child suing the school, had left the courthouse, attorneys for Brentwood Academy went before Johnson in a second session to argue she must issue the bench warrant for Ledbetter.

Johnson called for a brief recess, and less than 10 minutes later the school's attorneys and the judge reconvened for a third session. She denied the warrant request and cancelled a hearing previously scheduled for Tuesday. She also did not grant the Brentwood Academy attorney's request to order Ledbetter not to talk with the media.

Friday's hearing is the latest in a series of rapidly unfolding developments in the high-profile civil lawsuit.

In August, a former student and his mother filed a lawsuit against Brentwood Academy. They say the student, John Doe, was sexually assaulted several times during the 2014-15 school year by older students in a locker room. John and his mother, Jane Doe, say Brentwood Academy officials did not do enough to prevent or appropriately respond to the attacks.

School officials deny all wrongdoing.

More:Brentwood Academy case in legal limbo; family tries to withdraw lawsuit, judge says case is over

More:Lawsuit: Brentwood Academy officials refused to report repeated rapes of 12-year-old boy

More:Boy, parents accused in Brentwood Academy assault lawsuit deny wrongdoing

Before the flurry of activity Thursday, the case was in the midst of the discovery process, the portion of a lawsuit where both sides pursue additional evidence to help their potential arguments for trial.

On Thursday, the same day as an impromptu hearing in the case, the lawyers for John Doe filed notice of "nonsuit without prejudice." It's a legal move that potentially allows the attorneys to file the lawsuit again in the future.

The defense then made a motion for Johnson to dismiss the case with prejudice, which she granted Thursday.

On Friday, she explained what led to her decision to dismiss the case.

"In light of everything that happened in the case, and counsel's behavior yesterday, the motion the plaintiffs filed for voluntary dismissal was done in bad faith (and) was not well taken," Johnson said from the bench.

Dismissal with prejudice means the case could not be refiled.

"Yesterday, (Ledbetter) made comments to the media and we need to address those, because that would be contempt of this court," Johnson said Friday.

Gilbert, representing Jane and John Doe, maintained that Johnson should no longer have jurisdiction over the case because Gilbert already filed a motion to withdraw the lawsuit Thursday.

Gilbert also said that during Thursday's hearing, Johnson threatened to put Ledbetter in jail "through Christmas" if he refused to answer questions during a deposition. Ledbetter refused, citing attorney-client privilege, which led to Gilbert's motion to dismiss the case without prejudice.

"The court has a duty to enter it as a nonsuit. Anything thereafter would be a violation of the rules," Gilbert told Johnson on Friday.

"I’ve spoken with the board of professional responsibility and the board of judicial conduct. I do not want to make any complaint, (but) I ask your honor to answer the order of dismissal without prejudice. If the court won’t do that, I have no choice but to ask the court to recuse itself from the proceedings.”

Johnson denied Gilbert's request.

Story continues below

Thursday afternoon, Ledbetter spoke with The Tennessean.

"We felt the court was forcing attorney-client protected information of the plaintiffs to be given to the defendants, so we dismissed without prejudice," Ledbetter said.

Ledbetter's comment came after a spokeswoman for the court told The Tennessean Johnson had dismissed the case.

The lawyers gave notice of their dismissal at 2:58 p.m. An order from Johnson, stamped 3:59 p.m. Thursday by the court clerk, says the case is dismissed with prejudice.

It's unclear how a judge can dismiss a case with prejudice after attorneys have withdrawn the case without prejudice. It is also unclear how a judge can call a hearing for a case that has been dismissed or withdrawn.

"The plaintiff has the right to dismiss without prejudice," said Robb Harvey, a Nashville attorney who represents The Tennessean.

"There’s almost no way a judge can interfere with that. I’m really puzzled what she did and on what basis. If that’s what happened, it’s highly unusual …"

Additionally, Tennessee court rules state, "A voluntary nonsuit to dismiss an action without prejudice must be followed by an order of voluntary dismissal signed by the court and entered by the clerk."

Nashville attorney Jim Doran said Friday there may be an exception to that rule in some instances, where a judge can dismiss a case “for failure to comply with rules of procedure or with an order of the court.”

But he’s never heard of a judge dismissing a case on those grounds after a plaintiff’s attorney has already moved to withdraw the lawsuit.

“This may be a situation that would have to be determined by the appellate court, as to whether (this) dismissal can be made after an attempt at voluntary dismissal,” Doran said.

Mark Chalos, a lawyer at Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein who had previously reviewed the suit for The Tennessean, said Thursday and Friday’s events were unusual.

Contempt against an attorney is "an unusual remedy and is typically used in cases the judge views the conduct as being extreme," he said.

The debate in court Friday is likely a sign that “the judge is frustrated and displeased” about the way the case is proceeding, he added.

“It’s difficult to say whether this unusual remedy is appropriate here, but the judge has her discretion to make her decisions,” he said, adding that he expects one or both sides could take those issues up through an appeals process.

“I can tell you I scratched my head about what’s going on,” he added, referring to the dismissal. “It seems like there are facts to this story that we don’t know.”

Johnson's order also says the plaintiffs must pay court costs and the defendants' attorneys fees.

When asked about what happens next in the case, Elizabeth Russell, an attorney representing a student accused of attacking John Doe, said, "there is no case. It's been dismissed."

Reporter Adam Tamburin contributed to this report.

Reach Dave Boucher at 615-259-8892, dboucher@tennessean.com and on Twitter @Dave_Boucher1. Reach Elaina Sauber at esauber@tennessean.com or 615-571-1172 and on Twitter @ElainaSauber.