EFRAIN MARTINEZ CLASS, PLAINTIFF, APPELLANT,
v.
CARIBE HILTON HOTEL AND UNION GASTRONOMICA, LOCAL 610, DEFENDANTS, 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 a specific local rule, requiring substantial proceedings within six months, foreclosed the use of a more general discretionary rule for dismissal when those proceedings had occurred.
Appellants' case was dismissed for lack of diligent prosecution based on a local rule. However, dispositive motions had been filed within the six-mont…
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 Rule 41(B) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellants appeal from a judgment on May 9, 1985 dismissing their complaint for lack of diligent prosecution in totally disregarding motions to dismiss and/or summary judgment filed by appellees on November 27 and December 7, 1984.
Rule 313.1(B) of the District Court for the District of Puerto Rico provides that cases are subject to dismissal where “No substantial proceedings of record have been taken for a term of six (6) months as shown by the record docket.” “Substantial proceedings” include, inter alia, dispositive motions. Motions to dismiss and for summary judgment are indisputably dispositive motions.
On the face of the court’s order, therefore, it is evident that six months had not transpired between November 27, 1984 and May 9, 1985. Appellants, having totally overlooked Rule 313.1(B) in their motion to reconsider below, now assert it. We have every confidence that the district judge would have corrected the order if this ground had been brought to her attention. Yet the clarity of the local rule and the reliance placed upon it by the practicing bar requires that it be adhered to.
We can well understand the frustration experienced by the court in dealing with plaintiffs who simply failed to respond at all to motions filed over five months in the past. Indeed local Rule 311.9 gave the court power, when no response to the motions was filed within ten days, to decide the motions without a hearing. But that was not the route taken. Appellees invoke the power of a federal court to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute under Fed.R. Civ.P.Rule 41. This rule admittedly gives wide discretionary powers to a district court in absence of any more restrictive rule. But where a court has adopted a clearcut local rule effectively proscribing dismissal when certain substantial proceedings have taken place within a six month period, elemental fairness will foreclose resort to the more general discretionary rule.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded to the district court for further proceedings.
No costs.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jardines Bacata v. Aniceto Diaz-Marquez, 878 F.2d 1555 (1st Cir. 1989)
-
Primitivo Ruiz Varela v. Velez, 814 F.2d 821 (1st Cir. 1987)