-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-10-29
The court held that the action is dismissed without prejudice because the plaintiff failed to timely file an amended complaint and submit a new motion to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-10-20
The court held that the plaintiff's failure to timely file a memorandum of law, despite multiple orders, warrants dismissal of the action.
-
Del. Ch.·
2021-01-04
The Court of Chancery granted Charter's motion to strike Optymyze's notice of dismissal, finding it ineffective. The court then granted Charter's motion to dismiss Optymyze's counterclaims with prejudice under Rule 41(b) due to pervasive litigation misconduct. Finally, the court
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-10-30
The court held that the pro se complaint failed to state a claim and lacked subject matter jurisdiction, warranting dismissal.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-09-14
The court held that the plaintiff's repeated failure to prosecute the case and disregard for court orders warranted dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(b).
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-05-12
The court denied the motion for reconsideration, ordering the movant to file a proper amended motion within 21 days.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-03-30
The court dismissed the case without prejudice due to the plaintiff's failure to comply with court orders and local rules.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-02-06
The court dismissed plaintiff Edmondson's claims with prejudice for failure to prosecute and denied defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law, but deferred ruling on costs pending a renewed motion.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2019-12-27
The court held that the defendant's repeated failure to comply with discovery orders, despite multiple directives and warnings, constituted willful non-compliance justifying severe sanctions.
-
Del. Super. Ct.·
2019-01-07
The Court of Common Pleas erred in denying the appellant's motion to amend her complaint to include quasi-contractual claims, as the appellee impliedly consented to try these issues by not objecting to the evidence presented and by referencing similar claims in the pretrial stipu
-
Del. Ch.·
2006-08-10
The Court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the plaintiff's employee status, the amount of wages owed, and whether the Christensens could be held personally liable under the Delaware Wage Payment and
-
975 F. Supp. 2d 412·
M.D. Fla.·
1999-10-25
The court denied the plaintiff's motion to be excused from filing a trial brief and granted the plaintiff's motion to accept the late-filed brief, but prohibited the plaintiff from introducing any exhibits at trial.
-
958 F.2d 204·
8th Cir.·
1992-02-26
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action with prejudice for a pattern of intentional delay and failure to comply with discovery orders.
-
882 F.2d 93·
4th Cir.·
1989-08-10
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the suit for failure to obey a court order, nor in dismissing the claim against Finley.
-
878 F.2d 1137·
9th Cir.·
1989-06-23
The court held that unsuccessful applicants for foreman registration lacked standing to sue for breach of the collective bargaining agreement because they were neither members of the bargaining unit nor third-party beneficiaries.
-
869 F.2d 1175·
8th Cir.·
1989-03-17
The court held that the magistrate did not abuse discretion in dismissing the complaint with prejudice and assessing costs due to the plaintiff's failure to appear for trial and the incredible nature of his excuses.
-
839 F.2d 930·
2d Cir.·
1988-02-18
The court held that dismissing the action for failure to prepare a portion of the pretrial order was an abuse of discretion.
-
831 F.2d 1238·
4th Cir.·
1987-10-28
The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of all claims and counterclaims, finding that the plaintiffs failed to meet contractual conditions and prove fraud, and that the defendants did not abuse their discretion regarding sanctions or costs.
-
808 F.2d 978·
2d Cir.·
1987-01-06
The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the in rem action against the ship for lack of diligent prosecution, as prejudice from the delay was not adequately established.
-
791 F.2d 605·
7th Cir.·
1986-05-29
The court held that the plaintiff's conversion claim accrued when the defendant refused to return the mould upon demand, and since the action was filed more than two years after that date, it was barred by the Indiana statute of limitations.
-
779 F.2d 215·
4th Cir.·
1985-12-16
The court held that the district court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous, affirming the dismissal of the civil RICO claims.
-
736 F.2d 1250·
8th Cir.·
1984-06-22
The court held that an unretained attorney whom an injured employee consults for potential FELA representation is a 'person in interest' under 45 U.S.C. § 60, but affirmed the dismissal because the union failed to prove the railroad had a policy or practice of intimidating employ
-
643 F.2d 1339·
9th Cir.·
1980-07-01
The court held that the district court's bifurcated trial and causation analysis were erroneous, requiring reversal and remand.
-
469 F.2d 1060·
5th Cir.·
1972-11-22
The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove any violation of securities laws based on the broker's statements, and the sale of other stock to cover losses was lawful.
-
385 F.2d 779·
9th Cir.·
1967-11-17
The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that even if the trial judge mistakenly believed res ipsa loquitur was inapplicable in non-jury cases, the outcome would not have changed because the plaintiff failed to establish exclusive control.
-
370 F.2d 326·
5th Cir.·
1967-01-04
The court held that the pre-trial stipulation did not concede coverage under the Fair Labor Standards Act because it did not establish that the defendants knew or should have known their goods were shipped in interstate commerce.
-
201 F.2d 861·
5th Cir.·
1953-02-18
A party seeking rescission based on fraud must act promptly upon discovery of the fraud; delay constitutes a bar to equitable relief.