Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 41(B) Dismissal

179 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Hobson v. Wilson
  737 F.2d 1· D.C. Cir.· 1984-06-08 ·cited 237×
  The court held that the District of Columbia and its employees can be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), and that certain claims against FBI defendants were barred by the statute of limitations, while others against MPD defendants and the District lacked sufficient evidence.
• Buchanan v. Bowman
  820 F.2d 359· 11th Cir.· 1987-06-24 ·cited 171×
  The court affirmed the district court's imposition of sanctions, striking the appellant's answer and entering a default judgment, and upheld the damages award.
• Durham v. Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co.
  385 F.2d 366· 5th Cir.· 1967-10-31 ·cited 147×
  The court held that dismissing a complaint with prejudice due to an attorney's negligence, without evidence of bad faith or substantial prejudice to the defendant, exceeds judicial discretion.
• Indus. Bldg. Materials, Inc. v. Interchemical Corp.
  437 F.2d 1336· 9th Cir.· 1970-11-23 ·cited 118×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the action under Rule 41(b) and granting summary judgment, as genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the antitrust claims.
• Bittner v. Sadoff & Rudoy Indus.
  728 F.2d 820· 7th Cir.· 1984-02-07 ·cited 107×
  The court held that an order declaring entitlement to attorney's fees under ERISA is appealable even if the amount is not yet determined, and that the district court should reconsider the fee award under a 'substantially justified' standard, not a frivolousness standard.
• Nulf v. Int'l Paper Co.
  656 F.2d 553· 10th Cir.· 1981-01-05 ·cited 70×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for her claims of discriminatory discharge, unequal pay, and denial of promotion, but that the award of attorney's fees to the defendant was improper.
• Rutledge v. Elec. Hose & Rubber Co.
  511 F.2d 668· 9th Cir.· 1975-01-30 ·cited 69×
• Chism v. Nat'l Heritage Life Ins. Co.
  637 F.2d 1328· 9th Cir.· 1981-01-30 ·cited 55×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case with prejudice due to the plaintiff's persistent failure to comply with discovery rules and court orders, and that the Doe defendants did not destroy diversity jurisdiction as no claims wer
• McGOWAN v. Faulkner Concrete Pipe Co.
  659 F.2d 554· 5th Cir.· 1981-10-15 ·cited 53×
  The court held that dismissal under Rule 41(b) was an abuse of discretion absent a clear record of intentional delay or contumacious conduct, and that denial of class certification was not an abuse of discretion given the plaintiffs' delay and financial concerns.
• Harris v. Birmingham Bd. OF Educ.
  712 F.2d 1377· 11th Cir.· 1983-08-22 ·cited 49×
  The court held that the trial court's finding of no discrimination was clearly erroneous due to an erroneous view of controlling legal principles regarding past discrimination, lack of standards, and subjective hiring. The court affirmed the denial of class certification but reve
• Ruzicka v. Gen. Motors Corp.
  649 F.2d 1207· 6th Cir.· 1980-08-21 ·cited 45×
  A union's failure to timely file a grievance statement, if based on reliance on a prevailing practice of granting extensions, does not constitute a breach of the duty of fair representation. Such conduct may be ordinary negligence, which is insufficient to establish liability.
• Rose v. Batson
  765 F.2d 511· 5th Cir.· 1985-07-18 ·cited 44×
  The court held that while sanctions were appropriate for discovery non-compliance, the district court abused its discretion by imposing the severe sanction of dismissal with prejudice without considering less drastic alternatives and by awarding excessive attorney's fees.
• Sutton v. Atl. Richfield Co.
  646 F.2d 407· 9th Cir.· 1981-05-26 ·cited 44×
  The court held that even if the plaintiff established a prima facie case of age discrimination, the employer articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the early retirement, and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate these reasons were pretextual.
• Wrenn v. Am. Cast Iron Pipe Co.
  575 F.2d 544· 5th Cir.· 1978-06-21 ·cited 43×
  The court held that dismissing a pro se plaintiff's Title VII action for late payment of a filing fee, after the plaintiff had requested counsel and filed correspondence indicating intent to sue, was an abuse of discretion.
• Gunvant D. Shah v. MT. Zion Hosp. & Med. Ctr.
  642 F.2d 268· 9th Cir.· 1981-02-11 ·cited 42×
  The court affirmed the district court's rulings, finding no merit to the plaintiff's arguments regarding dismissals and summary judgment.
• Krehl v. Baskin-Robbins ICE Cream Co.
  664 F.2d 1348· 9th Cir.· 1982-01-04 ·cited 41×
  The court held that a trademark used in a distribution franchise system is not a separate product from the goods it represents, thus precluding a tie-in claim. It also held that Baskin-Robbins' dual distribution system and alleged price discussions did not constitute per se viola
• B.G. Toombs v. Leone
  777 F.2d 465· 9th Cir.· 1985-11-26 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the Section 12(1) claim was time-barred, other federal and state securities claims failed for lack of proof of material misstatements or omissions, common law claims were unsupported by evidence, and sanctions against counsel for violating local rules were not
• von Poppenheim v. Portland Boxing & Wrestling Comm'n
  442 F.2d 1047· 9th Cir.· 1971-05-17 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the district judge did not abuse his discretion in dismissing the plaintiff's action with prejudice for repeated failure to comply with court orders regarding pretrial statements and discovery.
• Hill v. Metro. Atlanta Rapid Transit Auth.
  841 F.2d 1533· 11th Cir.· 1988-04-11 ·cited 39×
  The court held that plaintiffs who applied for bus operator positions and met minimum qualifications established a prima facie case of disparate treatment, but other plaintiffs did not. The court also reversed the denial of attorney's fees.
• Gwendola M. Jones v. Graham
  709 F.2d 1457· 11th Cir.· 1983-07-22 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action for failure to prosecute and comply with court orders, finding extreme circumstances supported dismissal as a last resort.
• Patterson v. Gen. Motors Corp.
  631 F.2d 476· 7th Cir.· 1980-07-29 ·cited 38×
  The court held that summary judgment was improperly granted for the 1971 and 1974 transfers, as genuine issues of material fact remained regarding customary seniority rights. The court also held that the dismissal of the locker room incident claim under Rule 41(b) was clearly err
• Bailey v. USX Corp.
  850 F.2d 1506· 11th Cir.· 1988-08-02 ·cited 37×
  Former employees have standing to sue for retaliation under Title VII, but the plaintiff failed to prove a prima facie case of retaliation on the merits.
• Sime v. Trs. OF the Cal. State Univ. & Colleges
  526 F.2d 1112· 9th Cir.· 1975-12-04 ·cited 36×
  The court held that a plaintiff cannot raise a new procedural argument for the first time on appeal, especially when the trial court could have cured the alleged error.
• Crawford v. United States Steel Corp., & United Steelworkers of Am., AFL-CIO
  660 F.2d 663· 5th Cir.· 1981-11-06 ·cited 35×
  The court held that summary judgment was improperly granted against plaintiffs who had not filed EEOC charges when other similarly situated co-plaintiffs had filed charges, and that Rule 41(b) dismissals require findings of fact and conclusions of law.
• Johnson v. Artim Transp. Sys., Inc.
  826 F.2d 538· 7th Cir.· 1987-07-29 ·cited 32×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the hybrid claim as time-barred and the judgment for the union on the Title VII claim, finding no clear error in the district court's factual findings.
• Silver v. KCA, Inc.
  586 F.2d 138· 9th Cir.· 1978-11-13 ·cited 32×
  An employer's discharge of an employee for opposing a co-worker's racial slur does not constitute an unlawful employment practice under Title VII, as the opposition must be directed at an unlawful employment practice by the employer.
• Asociacion de Empleados del Instituto de Cultura Puertor-Riquena v. Morales
  538 F.2d 915· 1st Cir.· 1976-07-26 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint with prejudice for failure to prosecute and comply with court orders.
• Bach v. Friden Calculating Mach. Co., Inc.
  148 F.2d 407· 6th Cir.· 1945-03-26 ·cited 32×
  The court held that in a non-jury case dismissed under Rule 41(b) after the plaintiff's evidence, the trial court must make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Rule 52(a).
• Johnson v. Neel
  2013 WL 6231181· M.D. Fla.· 2025-03-25 ·cited 31×
  The court held that a pro se plaintiff's amended complaint, which suffered from the same deficiencies as the original complaint despite clear instructions to cure them, should be dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to comply with a court order.
• Cohen v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc.
  782 F.2d 923· 11th Cir.· 1986-02-18 ·cited 30×
  The court held that dismissal with prejudice for failure to obtain local counsel was an abuse of discretion when lesser sanctions were not considered and there was no clear record of delay or willful contempt.
• Holden v. Comm'n Against Discrimination OF the Commonwealth OF Mass.
  671 F.2d 30· 1st Cir.· 1982-02-17 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the Civil Rights Act claims were time-barred because the statute of limitations began to run on the date of notice of termination, and the Title VII claim was properly dismissed as the plaintiff failed to establish race discrimination.
• Khalid Choudhry v. Jenkins
  559 F.2d 1085· 7th Cir.· 1977-07-22 ·cited 30×
  Summary judgment for the employer was proper because the employee's speech, despite being on a matter of public concern, was disruptive to the essential functions of the prison and outweighed his First Amendment rights.
• Mann v. Merrill Lynch
  488 F.2d 75· 5th Cir.· 1973-12-07 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, even if phrased as for disobedience, does not operate as res judicata.
• Khushro Ghandi v. Police Dep't OF the City OF Detroit
  747 F.2d 338· 6th Cir.· 1984-10-18 ·cited 28×
  The court affirmed dismissal of claims against the FBI based on sovereign immunity and affirmed summary judgment for federal agents due to qualified immunity and lack of evidence. It reversed summary judgment for some federal defendants and remanded for further proceedings.
• Ekanem v. The Health & Hosp. Corp. OF Marion Cnty.
  724 F.2d 563· 7th Cir.· 1983-12-14 ·cited 27×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of most individual and class claims, finding no clear error in the district court's factual findings and legal conclusions, and granted a motion to strike an appendix volume.
• Papilsky v. Berndt
  466 F.2d 251· 2d Cir.· 1972-08-01 ·cited 27×
  A dismissal of a stockholder's derivative suit for failure to answer interrogatories, without notice to nonparty stockholders, does not operate as a res judicata bar to an identical cause of action asserted by another stockholder in a subsequent derivative suit.
• Eugene duPONT, III v. S. Nat'l Bank OF Houston
  771 F.2d 874· 5th Cir.· 1985-09-23 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court erred in invalidating property transfers without allowing the appellants to present their evidence, and that attorney ad litem fees should be taxed to the Trust. The court affirmed the validity of the Trust and other rulings.
• Dynes v. Army AIR Force Exch. Serv.
  720 F.2d 1495· 11th Cir.· 1983-10-24 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a Bivens claim for damages is not available for a federal employee's due process violation in employment termination proceedings when a comprehensive administrative remedy scheme exists.
• Falsetti v. Local Union NO. 2026
  355 F.2d 658· 3d Cir.· 1966-01-28 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the appellant's claims were barred by the statute of limitations, regardless of whether a state or federal period was applied.
• Camps v. C & P Tel. Co.
  692 F.2d 120· D.C. Cir.· 1981-12-31 ·cited 25×
  The dissenting judge believes the district court's dismissal should be affirmed, but without prejudice to the appellant filing a motion to reinstate the case under Rule 60(b).
• Ezra Hodge v. McLEAN Trucking Co.
  607 F.2d 1118· 5th Cir.· 1979-12-05 ·cited 24×
  The court held that a plaintiff must prove a discriminatory act within 180 days of filing an EEOC complaint, and a racially neutral seniority system, even if perpetuating past discrimination, is not actionable in itself.
• Royster Drive-In Theatres, Inc. v. Am. Broadcasting-Paramount Theatres, Inc.
  268 F.2d 246· 2d Cir.· 1959-06-08 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous, and that the plaintiff failed to prove a continuing conspiracy or damages resulting from any violation of law.
• Velazquez-Rivera v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc.
  920 F.2d 1072· 1st Cir.· 1990-12-18 ·cited 22×
  The court held that dismissal of the action was an excessive sanction for the attorney's inadvertent failure to appear at a pretrial conference, constituting an abuse of discretion.
• In re Hill v. Shekter
  775 F.2d 1385· 9th Cir.· 1985-11-12 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the bankruptcy appeal solely for the attorney's failure to timely file a brief without considering alternative sanctions.
• Fendler v. Westgate-California Corp.
  527 F.2d 1168· 9th Cir.· 1975-12-31 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the third amended complaint with prejudice and denying class certification.
• Arie Mack Moore v. JAS. H. Matthews & Co.
  473 F.2d 328· 9th Cir.· 1972-11-29 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the evidence presented and promised was sufficient to raise triable issues of fact, precluding summary judgment in an antitrust action.
• Council OF Federated Orgs. v. Hon. Sidney Mize
  339 F.2d 898· 5th Cir.· 1964-12-22 ·cited 22×
  The court held that dismissing a complaint for failure to appear without a hearing, and without a hearing on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, constitutes an abuse of discretion and a denial of due process.
• D.A. Rickards v. Belkin and John S. Sleasman
  704 F.2d 1449· 9th Cir.· 1983-05-03 ·cited 20×
  The court held that summary judgment was properly granted on the antitrust damages claim due to lack of evidence, and that the magistrate properly dismissed the antitrust injunctive claims and granted a directed verdict on the tortious interference claim because the evidence did
• Bush v. The United States Postal Serv.
  496 F.2d 42· 4th Cir.· 1974-04-29 ·cited 20×
  The court would affirm dismissal for failure to prosecute, but for a peculiar circumstance regarding how the hearing date was set.
• Sheets v. Yamaha Motors Corp.
  891 F.2d 533· 5th Cir.· 1990-01-04 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in awarding Rule 11 sanctions because the defendants' insistence on Hague Convention service was warranted by existing law and not for an improper purpose. The court affirmed the denial of discovery sanctions and the ta