CALIFORNIA MOLASSES CO. ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
C. BREWER & CO. ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the dismissal of the antitrust action for failure to prosecute was not an abuse of discretion.
Plaintiffs commenced an antitrust action which showed little progress over two years. After warnings and a deadline for discovery, the court dismissed…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 41(B) Dismissal For Failure To Prosecute cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiffs commenced an antitrust action on July 17, 1969. Two years later, because the file revealed little or no progress, the district judge to whom the case had been assigned ordered the plaintiff to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Following a hearing, and a warning, the court gave plaintiffs ninety days to complete the preliminary phase of discovery. When the time expired without substantial progress, the court dismissed the action on December 13, 1971.
This appeal asserts that the dismissal pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) was an abuse of discretion. The scope of discretion in such cases is fully discussed in Von Poppenheim v. Portland Boxing & Wrestling Com’n, 442 F. 2d 1047 (9th Cir. 1971), cert. denied 404 U.S. 1039 (1972). The record here reveals no abuse.
After the court had called the plaintiff’s delinquencies to the attention of counsel and had given fair warning that the case would be dismissed, plaintiff used more than half of the ninety days seeking new counsel. The promised discovery was not accomplished.
This court is aware of the serious consequences to a party of the dismissal of his case. But if the Rules of Civil Procedure are to be effective they must be enforced. The sanction imposed in this case was neither harsh nor unexpected under the circumstances. The dismissal was clearly within the discretionary power of the court to keep its calendar moving.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Anderson v. AIR West, 542 F.2d 522 (9th Cir. 1976)
-
Rutledge v. Elec. Hose & Rubber Co., 511 F.2d 668 (9th Cir. 1975)
Authorities Cited
- Angle v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 404 U.S. 1039 (U.S. 1972)
- Ozark Air Lines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., 404 U.S. 1039 (U.S. 1972)
- von Poppenheim v. Portland Boxing & Wrestling Comm'n, 442 F.2d 1047 (9th Cir. 1971)