Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 41(B) (Involuntary Dismissal)

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

• Boazman v. Econ. Lab., Inc.
  537 F.2d 210· 5th Cir.· 1976-08-20 ·cited 103×
  The court held that dismissal for want of prosecution, even without prejudice, is reversible error when the statute of limitations may bar refiling and the conduct was not contumacious, and that summary judgment cannot be granted solely for failure to respond without the movant m
• Anderson v. AIR West
  542 F.2d 522· 9th Cir.· 1976-09-22 ·cited 88×
  The court held that the district judge did not abuse his discretion in dismissing the plaintiff's complaint with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute with reasonable diligence.
• Moore v. Hughes Helicopters, Inc.
  708 F.2d 475· 9th Cir.· 1983-06-16 ·cited 69×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination under the disparate impact model for supervisory and upper-level craft positions.
• Hamm v. Members OF the Bd. OF Regents OF the State OF Fla.
  708 F.2d 647· 11th Cir.· 1983-07-01 ·cited 68×
  The court affirmed the dismissals of the plaintiff's claims, finding no error in the district court's rulings on procedural grounds, the scope of EEOC charges, or the application of legal standards for retaliation and discrimination.
• COX v. C. H. Masland & Sons, Inc.
  607 F.2d 138· 5th Cir.· 1979-11-21 ·cited 63×
  Although the employee had a right to a jury trial, the denial was harmless error because the evidence was so decisive that a directed verdict for the defendants would have been required.
• Huey v. Teledyne, Inc.
  608 F.2d 1234· 9th Cir.· 1979-10-26 ·cited 54×
  The court held that while the district court's dismissal for failure to prosecute was proper, the refusal to certify the class action is not reviewable on appeal due to the policy against piecemeal appeals, but the case is remanded for technical correction of the dismissal order.
• Lieberman v. Gant
  630 F.2d 60· 2d Cir.· 1980-07-17 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in excluding comparative and statistical evidence and that the denial of tenure was based on legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons.
• 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
• Barbara Hildebrand and husband v. Honeywell, Inc.
  622 F.2d 179· 5th Cir.· 1980-07-25 ·cited 47×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint for failure to specifically plead jurisdiction and for failure to prosecute, as the facts alleged supported jurisdiction and the delay was not attributable to willful misconduct by the plaintiffs.
• Lumbermen's Mut. Cas. Co. v. Rayford J. Wright
  322 F.2d 759· 5th Cir.· 1963-09-19 ·cited 45×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the doctrine of the Law of the Case prevented relitigation of the issue of whether the suit was prescribed under LSA-Civil Code Article 3519.
• Bugg v. Int'l Union OF Allied Indus. Workers OF Am.
  674 F.2d 595· 7th Cir.· 1982-02-18 ·cited 44×
  The court held that attorney's fees can be awarded to a prevailing defendant-appellee for appellate work if the plaintiff's appeal is frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.
• Save OUR Wetlands, Inc. v. Colonel Thomas Sands
  711 F.2d 634· 5th Cir.· 1983-08-08 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the Corps of Engineers adequately considered environmental impacts and alternative routes before issuing a permit, and thus did not err in dismissing the complaint.
• Safeway Stores v. Fannan
  308 F.2d 94· 9th Cir.· 1962-09-11 ·cited 34×
  A trial court may dismiss an action under Rule 41(b) on its own motion after a defendant moves for a directed verdict, but such dismissal must be based on judicial discretion, not arbitrary choice, and the record must support the decision to dismiss without prejudice.
• Riegel Fiber Corp. v. Anderson GIN Co.
  512 F.2d 784· 5th Cir.· 1975-05-09 ·cited 33×
  The court held that Riegel was a third-party beneficiary entitled to enforce the individual farmer contracts and that the contracts' quantity terms were sufficiently definite under the UCC to be enforceable, and that denying enforcement due to failure to qualify to do business in
• Hebron v. Union OIL Co. OF Cal.
  634 F.2d 245· 5th Cir.· 1981-01-15 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the plaintiff was a borrowed employee of Union Oil, making his exclusive remedy worker's compensation under the LHWCA, and that neither the vessel owner nor Union Oil were negligent.
• Duval v. Midwest Auto City, Inc.
  578 F.2d 721· 8th Cir.· 1978-06-12 ·cited 32×
  A defendant waives the right to challenge the sufficiency of the plaintiff's evidence by introducing their own evidence after a motion for dismissal is denied or reserved. The award of attorney fees under the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act is not an abuse of discr
• Stevens v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.
  710 F.2d 1224· 7th Cir.· 1983-06-23 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the plaintiff's action for failure to prosecute and for failure to cooperate in discovery, nor in denying the plaintiff's motion for relief from the dismissal order.
• Grant v. Cnty. OF Seminole
  817 F.2d 731· 11th Cir.· 1987-05-27 ·cited 28×
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' constitutional challenge to a county ordinance restricting mobile home locations, finding the ordinance rationally related to legitimate government interests.
• Fong SIK Leung Ad Litem for Fong Gar Hong v. Dulles
  226 F.2d 74· 9th Cir.· 1955-07-28 ·cited 28×
• Pickel v. United States
  746 F.2d 176· 3d Cir.· 1984-10-05 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the district court erred in quashing IRS summonses based on a sequestration order violation, failure to disclose an informant's identity, or the IRS using its civil arm for a criminal investigation, as these grounds were insufficient under current law.
• 3 Penny Theater Corp. v. Plitt Theatres, Inc.
  812 F.2d 337· 7th Cir.· 1987-02-19 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) and in denying the motion to vacate the dismissal under Rule 60(b).
• Childs v. Local 18
  719 F.2d 1379· 9th Cir.· 1983-06-28 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed Title VII claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and affirmed the dismissal of Section 1981, Section 1985, and LMRDA claims.
• McCARGO v. Oley G. Hedrick
  545 F.2d 393· 4th Cir.· 1976-11-22 ·cited 26×
  A local rule imposing excessive and overly detailed pretrial requirements is void for being inconsistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, and dismissal under such a rule constitutes an abuse of discretion.
• Soliz v. Plunkett
  615 F.2d 272· 5th Cir.· 1980-04-09 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the district court prematurely dismissed the action because the plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case that Plunkett was a farm labor contractor under the Act.
• J. F. Edwards Constr. Co. v. Anderson Safeway Guard Rail Corp.
  542 F.2d 1318· 7th Cir.· 1976-10-21 ·cited 25×
  The court held that a district court cannot compel parties to stipulate facts, and sanctions imposed for failure to do so are improper.
• Correa v. Nampa Sch. Dist. NO. 131
  645 F.2d 814· 9th Cir.· 1981-05-18 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for her Title VII, due process, and First Amendment claims, and that the employer provided legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the non-renewal of her contract.
• Ira W. Nichol v. Pullman Standard, Inc.
  889 F.2d 115· 7th Cir.· 1989-11-06 ·cited 23×
  The court held that an employee can waive entitlement to long-term disability benefits under an ERISA welfare benefit plan, and that the severance agreements were validly entered into.
• U. S. Fibres, Inc. v. Proctor & Schwartz, Inc.
  509 F.2d 1043· 6th Cir.· 1975-01-17 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the seller did not breach express or implied warranties, commit fraud, or act negligently, and that the buyer's own actions caused the product defects.
• Romero v. The City OF Pomona
  883 F.2d 1418· 9th Cir.· 1989-08-24 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying plaintiffs' motion to reopen their case, in its application of the geographical compactness test, or in denying defendants' motion to retax costs for expert witness fees.
• Eldridge v. Block
  832 F.2d 1132· 9th Cir.· 1987-11-17 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying the pro se prisoner's timely request for an extension to file an amended complaint, especially when the prisoner lacked access to the necessary local rules, and thus the subsequent dismissal was also an abuse
• Galdi v. Jones
  141 F.2d 984· 2d Cir.· 1944-04-04 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the lower court erred in dismissing the stockholder actions based on indispensable party issues and insufficient pleading of stock ownership and reasons for not making a demand.
• Geaney v. Carlson
  776 F.2d 140· 7th Cir.· 1985-10-28 ·cited 18×
  The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to review the magistrate's dismissal, whether characterized as voluntary or involuntary, because the dismissal was either a nonappealable voluntary dismissal or an involuntary dismissal entered without the required consent for a final app
• Eulalio Frausto and Peter L. Smith v. Legal AID Soc'y OF SAN Diego, Inc.
  563 F.2d 1324· 9th Cir.· 1977-11-01 ·cited 16×
  The court held that poor interview performance, unstable employment history, poor reputation, and inability to get along with people are legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for rejecting an employment application under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
• Garden Homes, Inc. v. Mason
  249 F.2d 71· 1st Cir.· 1957-10-25 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint with prejudice for failure to prosecute, and that federal jurisdiction was properly established.
• D.P. Apparel Corp. v. Roadway Express, Inc.
  736 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1984-05-31 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting an involuntary dismissal under Rule 41(b) because the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case for damage under the Carmack Amendment.
• Henderson Duval Houghton v. Osborne
  834 F.2d 745· 9th Cir.· 1987-12-14 ·cited 12×
• Williams v. Brown & Root, Inc.
  828 F.2d 325· 5th Cir.· 1987-10-02 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion to set aside a dismissal for failure to prosecute, as the attorney's inadvertent mistake did not constitute sufficiently unique circumstances for relief.
• Wilson v. United States
  645 F.2d 728· 9th Cir.· 1981-05-18 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial judge, acting as factfinder in a Rule 41(b) dismissal, was not required to apply the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to shift the burden of proof to the defendant.
• English v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co.
  465 F.2d 43· 5th Cir.· 1972-08-07 ·cited 11×
  The court held that while the district court was justified in finding that white employees should be joined under Rule 19(a), its remedy of staying the action was improper; the court should have ordered joinder.
• Chaiffetz v. Robertson Research Holding, Ltd.
  798 F.2d 731· 5th Cir.· 1986-08-27 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting involuntary dismissal under Rule 41(b) because it failed to make adequate findings of fact and applied flawed reasoning regarding the employer's stated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for dismissal. The court also held
• Whitley v. Powell
  159 F.2d 625· 4th Cir.· 1946-12-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the standard of review for an involuntary dismissal under Rule 41(b) requires considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and that the driver's contributory negligence was imputable to the plaintiff owner-occupant.
• Carter v. Beverly Hills Sav. & Loan Ass'n
  884 F.2d 1186· 9th Cir.· 1989-09-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the time for filing a Rule 60(b) motion does not commence until a judgment is entered in compliance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 58, and that civil minutes do not satisfy Rule 58's separate document requirement.
• Davis v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
  871 F.2d 1134· D.C. Cir.· 1989-04-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that dismissal of claims for failure to provide a summary plan description against the employer was improper, but dismissal of claims for inadequate claims procedures and against the insurer for failure to provide a summary plan description was warranted. The court
• Joseph v. ST. Charles Parish Sch. Bd.
  736 F.2d 1036· 5th Cir.· 1984-07-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a delay in a tenured teacher's due process hearing does not violate constitutional rights if the delay is caused by the teacher or if the teacher suffers no prejudice from the delay.
• Deogracias Ruiz v. Shelby Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't
  725 F.2d 388· 6th Cir.· 1984-01-16 ·cited 6×
  The court held that dismissal of a Title VII action for filing a request for counsel one day late was improper, and the case should be remanded for a determination of whether the delay was reasonable under equitable principles.
• United States Freight Co. v. Penn Cent. Transp. Co.
  716 F.2d 954· 2d Cir.· 1983-06-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that striking a defendant's answer and entering a default judgment was not an abuse of discretion for repeated discovery violations.
• CMS Software Design Sys., Inc. v. Info Designs, Inc.
  785 F.2d 1246· 5th Cir.· 1986-03-28 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by granting an involuntary dismissal under Rule 41(b) before the plaintiff had a full opportunity to present rebuttal evidence on the defendant's affirmative defense.
• Vakalis v. Shawmut Corp.
  925 F.2d 34· 1st Cir.· 1991-02-11 ·cited 4×
  A district court's dismissal of a case for failure to pay a monetary sanction, even if the sanction itself is later challenged, is appropriate when the party defies a clear court order to pay.
• Sullivan v. City OF Cleveland Heights
  869 F.2d 961· 6th Cir.· 1989-03-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not err in finding that the clothes-changing facilities afforded to the female hockey player were substantially equal to those provided for male players, thus affirming the dismissal of her gender discrimination suit.
• Kern OIL & Ref. Co. v. Tenneco OIL Co.
  792 F.2d 1380· 9th Cir.· 1986-06-24 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that Kern Oil's payments were made under a mistake of fact, Tenneco waived Kern Oil's breach, and the dismissal of Tenneco's counterclaim was proper due to forum shopping.