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

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

• United States v. State OF Ark.
  791 F.2d 1573· 8th Cir.· 1986-05-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the State's reinstatement as a party was proper under Rule 54(b) but remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the State's liability for desegregation costs due to due process concerns. Attorneys' fees for implementing the desegregation order were permissible, bu
• Consuelo Mercado v. Austin Police Dep't
  754 F.2d 1266· 5th Cir.· 1985-03-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that an unconventional dismissal procedure under Rule 41(b) was permissible and did not deny due process, as the plaintiff failed to make an adequate offer of proof for her remaining witnesses and her own testimony was impeached.
• Skillern v. Bolger
  725 F.2d 1121· 7th Cir.· 1984-01-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that neither Title VII nor the Rehabilitation Act provided relief to the plaintiff because the Post Office's hiring practices were governed by the Veterans' Preference Act, which Title VII explicitly preserves.
• Biggs v. Logicon, Inc.
  663 F.2d 52· 8th Cir.· 1981-11-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence of the defendant's negligence to overcome the defendant's motion for involuntary dismissal.
• McDONOUGH v. Champburger Corp.
  488 F.2d 948· 5th Cir.· 1974-02-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the proxy statement's alleged misstatements and omissions were not material, and thus did not violate federal securities laws or state common law.
• Ignatius G. ANG v. The Procter & Gamble Co.
  932 F.2d 540· 6th Cir.· 1991-05-08 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the appellant's claims for race discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, national origin discrimination under Title VII, and retaliatory discharge. The court affirmed the dismissal of all claims.
• Weyher/Livsey Constructors, Inc. v. Int'l Chem. Co.
  864 F.2d 130· 11th Cir.· 1989-01-25 ·cited 3×
  The court held that terms on the reverse of a purchase order do not need to be conspicuous under the UCC if they are express warranties and not disclaimers. The case is remanded for determination of enforceability under general contract principles.
• Brooks v. The United States & Walter M. Pelzer, D.O.
  837 F.2d 958· 11th Cir.· 1988-02-17 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the trial court erred in striking plaintiff's expert witness without sufficient justification and in granting a directed verdict for the defendant physician, as material issues of fact remained for the jury.
• Drexel Burnham Lambert, Inc. v. Warner
  665 F. Supp. 1549· S.D. Fla.· 1987-07-31 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the defendant did not waive its right to arbitration by filing a prior state court action, and thus denied the motion for summary judgment and preliminary injunction.
• Mackroy v. Troutman
  2021 WL 780196· M.D. Fla.· 2025-07-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a judge should not recuse based on unsupported allegations of bias, and denied motions seeking recognition of a 'sacred title and sigil' and damages.
• S. Travel Club, Inc. v. Carnival AIR Lines, Inc.
  986 F.2d 125· 5th Cir.· 1993-03-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that an order awarding attorney's fees or costs is not reviewable on appeal until the award is reduced to a sum certain, and affirmed the dismissal of breach of contract claims based on a valid release.
• Hoover v. Langston Equip. Assocs., Inc.
  958 F.2d 742· 6th Cir.· 1992-03-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the complaint as time-barred and for failure to plead fraud with particularity, and did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend.
• Terrell v. R.D. Brewer
  935 F.2d 1015· 9th Cir.· 1991-06-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies should be without prejudice, and affirmed summary judgment for one defendant while reversing and remanding the dismissal of another.
• Livera v. First Nat'l State Bank OF NEW Jersey
  879 F.2d 1186· 3d Cir.· 1989-07-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the SBA's counterclaim without considering the Poulis factors, and that the Livera group's claims against the SBA were properly dismissed for failure to file an administrative claim. The court also held th
• Khushro Ghandi v. Police Dep't OF the City OF Detroit
  823 F.2d 959· 6th Cir.· 1987-07-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that plaintiffs failed to preserve claims of gross negligence and that the district court's findings regarding the agents' lack of instruction to the informant and the informant's status as a non-governmental actor were not clearly erroneous.
• O'Donnell v. Sheriff Pat Thomas
  814 F.2d 524· 8th Cir.· 1987-03-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred by failing to make specific factual findings on all material issues presented by the plaintiff's claims before dismissing the case under Rule 41(b).
• Kahn v. Massler
  241 F.2d 47· 3d Cir.· 1957-02-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the evidence did not support the plaintiffs' theory of joint venture and breach of trust, thus affirming the dismissal.
• Portes v. City of Doral
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-09-15
  The court denied the plaintiff's renewed motion for leave to amend the complaint because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate good cause for the untimely filing and exceeded the scope of prior court orders.
• Castillo v. Colmenares
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-09-03
  The court held that the defendant's pattern of willful, bad faith, and dilatory behavior, culminating in his failure to appear at a scheduled pretrial conference, warranted default judgment on the plaintiff's claims and dismissal of the counterclaim.
• Puck v. Silverman
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-03-29
  The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation, dismissing one plaintiff's claims with prejudice and holding both plaintiffs jointly and severally liable for sanctions due to their repeated failure to comply with court orders regarding mediation and hearings.
• Elnenaey v. Fid. Mgmt. Tr. Co., Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-10-30
  The court held that a plaintiff's misunderstanding of the legal effect of his actions does not constitute grounds for relief under Rule 60(b).
• Paola Canas v. Flash Dancers, Inc.
  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.
• Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co.
  990 F.2d 865· 6th Cir.· 1993-04-13
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the chromium contamination was caused by an 'accident' during the period of the defendant insurer's coverage.
• Hillig v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  916 F.2d 171· 4th Cir.· 1990-10-16
  The court held that dismissing a case to penalize blameless taxpayers for their attorneys' misconduct is an abuse of discretion, especially when less drastic sanctions are available.
• Albright v. United States
  732 F.2d 181· D.C. Cir.· 1984-04-10
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish a causal link between the videotaping and their alleged emotional injuries, and that the agency did not act intentionally or willfully in violation of the Privacy Act.
• Hersch & Co. v. C & W Manhattan Assocs.
  700 F.2d 476· 9th Cir.· 1982-12-30
  The dissenting opinion argues that an attorney fee should not be awarded because the claimant's attorney filed premature claims for permanent total disability benefits before the claimant reached maximum medical improvement and before rehabilitation efforts were unsuccessful.
• W. Auto Supply Co. v. Anderson
  610 F.2d 1126· 3d Cir.· 1979-11-27
  The court held that an involuntary dismissal under Rule 41(b) was improper when there was no failure by the plaintiff to prosecute or comply with rules or orders, and the dismissal was sua sponte without consent.