Rule 41(B)

73 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 622 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Autorama Corp. v. Joette D. Stewart
  802 F.2d 1284· 10th Cir.· 1986-10-07 ·cited 9×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the appeal was timely filed and that the appellants were not entitled to attorneys' fees and costs because the underlying action was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and not decided on the merits, nor was there a showing of bad faith.
• In re Harvard M. JEE v. The Hanil Bank
  799 F.2d 532· 9th Cir.· 1986-09-09 ·cited 9×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the bankruptcy court did not err in amending its dismissal order under Rule 60(a) to clarify that the dismissal was intended to be without prejudice.
• Chaiffetz v. Robertson Research Holding, Ltd.
  798 F.2d 731· 5th Cir.· 1986-08-27 ·cited 9×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  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
• Henglein v. Informal Plan FOR Plant Shutdown Benefits FOR Salaried Employees
  974 F.2d 391· 3d Cir.· 1992-09-08 ·cited 8×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  A plaintiff's failure to prove the existence of an ERISA plan results in a dismissal on the merits, not a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court must apply the correct standard to determine if an informal plan existed.
• Lockhart v. Sullivan
  925 F.2d 214· 7th Cir.· 1991-02-19 ·cited 8×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case for want of prosecution and in denying the motion to reinstate under Rule 59(e) due to the plaintiff's pattern of delay and inconsistent explanations.
• Sanchez v. City OF Santa ANA
  936 F.2d 1027· 9th Cir.· 1990-07-11 ·cited 8×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the district court properly vacated its Rule 54(b) certification as a clerical error, and that the denial of discovery of personnel files was not an abuse of discretion. However, the court reversed summary judgment on promotion claims and remanded retaliation
• Gleason v. McBRIDE
  869 F.2d 688· 2d Cir.· 1989-03-13 ·cited 8×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court affirmed the dismissal of claims related to the Gleason I arrest and the section 1985 claim, affirmed dismissal of most Gleason III claims, but reversed dismissal of Gleason III claims against certain defendants and remanded for further proceedings.
• Guzowski v. Hartman
  849 F.2d 252· 6th Cir.· 1988-06-20 ·cited 8×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court should affirm the district court's dismissal of the second action, as the prior dismissal with prejudice bars relitigation of claims that were or could have been brought.
• Mangan v. Caspar Weinberger
  848 F.2d 909· 8th Cir.· 1988-06-08 ·cited 8×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the amended complaints with prejudice for failure to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 8.
• Reg'l Refuse Sys., Inc. v. Inland Reclamation Co.
  842 F.2d 150· 6th Cir.· 1988-03-16 ·cited 8×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
• Carvel Dillard v. Sec. Pac. Brokers, Inc.
  835 F.2d 607· 5th Cir.· 1988-01-15 ·cited 8×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  Claims arising from transactions that occurred before the defendant filed their answer in a prior suit are barred by res judicata, but claims arising after the answer date are not.
• Smith v. United States
  834 F.2d 166· 10th Cir.· 1987-12-02 ·cited 8×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the taxpayer's motions to reopen discovery and in dismissing the case for failure to prosecute.
• Primitivo Ruiz Varela v. Velez
  814 F.2d 821· 1st Cir.· 1987-03-26 ·cited 8×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing claims without proper notice or a hearing on good cause, and by dismissing for lack of prosecution despite substantial proceedings.
• Coston v. Detroit Edison Co.
  789 F.2d 377· 6th Cir.· 1986-04-25 ·cited 8×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case due to the plaintiff's counsel's repeated failures to appear and prosecute the action.
• Carter v. United States
  780 F.2d 925· 11th Cir.· 1986-01-21 ·cited 8×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying the plaintiffs' motion to vacate the dismissal order, as dismissal was a sanction of last resort not justified by the circumstances.
• Rabb v. Amatex Corp.
  769 F.2d 996· 4th Cir.· 1985-08-12 ·cited 8×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that a district court's pre-trial order coordinating discovery in complex litigation does not violate federal rules or due process, and sanctions, including evidence preclusion and dismissal, are permissible for willful noncompliance under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37.
• McGLORY v. United States
  763 F.2d 309· 7th Cir.· 1985-06-06 ·cited 8×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the suit based on a standard of reviewing agency action for arbitrariness or capriciousness, rather than conducting a de novo trial on the factual findings.
• Haley v. The Kan. City Star
  761 F.2d 489· 8th Cir.· 1985-05-08 ·cited 8×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the appellant's complaints with prejudice due to the appointed attorney's failure to comply with court orders.
• Crawford v. Ne. Okla. State Univ.
  713 F.2d 586· 10th Cir.· 1983-07-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff established a prima facie case of employment discrimination by showing she was qualified and fired under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination, and that her replacement was hired.
• Pubali Bank v. City Nat'l Bank
  676 F.2d 1326· 9th Cir.· 1982-05-13 ·cited 8×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the conditions for drawing on the letters of credit were not met because 'freight earned per contract' did not include demurrage, and the bank, acting in its own self-interest with knowledge of falsity, was liable for the wrongful draw.
• Spaulding v. Univ. OF Wash.
  676 F.2d 1232· 9th Cir.· 1982-04-13 ·cited 8×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The University of Washington should be held liable for the cost of the transcript because it represented that reimbursement would be available if the appellants prevailed on their interlocutory appeal.
• Saylor v. Bastedo
  623 F.2d 230· 2d Cir.· 1980-05-23 ·cited 8×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the action sua sponte for want of prosecution without adequate notice and by denying the motion to substitute the deceased plaintiff's executors.
• Donaldson v. Taylor Prods. Div. OF Tecumseh Prods. Co.
  620 F.2d 155· 7th Cir.· 1980-04-10 ·cited 8×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination against the union and that the employer articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the discharge, which the plaintiff failed to prove were pretextual.
• Stewart Sec. Corp. v. Guar. Tr. Co.
  597 F.2d 240· 10th Cir.· 1979-04-26 ·cited 8×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  A dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, even if erroneous, has res judicata effect on the jurisdictional issue in a subsequent suit between the same parties.
• McCLOSKEY & Co. v. Allstate Ins. Cos.
  358 F.2d 544· D.C. Cir.· 1966-03-24 ·cited 8×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that preparatory acts before physical movement of goods can constitute 'unloading' under an insurance policy's 'complete operation' doctrine, and that the accident was causally related to the unloading process.
• Addison v. The Grand Lodge OF the Int'l Ass'n OF MacHinists
  318 F.2d 504· 9th Cir.· 1963-06-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that allegations of a conspiracy to expel the plaintiff, which occurred after the effective date of the LMRDA, presented a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment on claims related to wrongful expulsion. However, the claim for breach of fiduciary
• Lar (America First) Daly v. Stratton
  304 F.2d 666· 7th Cir.· 1962-06-12 ·cited 8×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The order denying defendants' motion to vacate the order setting aside a dismissal is not a final, appealable order because the district court had jurisdiction to set aside the dismissal under Rule 60(b) within one year.
• Newport v. Revyuk
  303 F.2d 23· 8th Cir.· 1962-05-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action with prejudice due to the plaintiff's failure to prosecute and comply with discovery orders, and that the appellants, who acquired the plaintiff's claim, could not overcome this dismissal.
• Rollins v. United States
  286 F.2d 761· 9th Cir.· 1961-01-18 ·cited 8×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the action for lack of jurisdiction, as the plaintiff's prompt completion of service after an initial delay was sufficient to establish jurisdiction.
• Jameson v. DU Comb
  275 F.2d 293· 7th Cir.· 1960-03-01 ·cited 8×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case for want of prosecution and that the dismissal was not error.
• Renato Lavino v. Jamison
  230 F.2d 909· 9th Cir.· 1956-03-01 ·cited 8×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the district court erred in denying a new trial based on newly discovered evidence that could explain discrepancies in property seized by the Collector.
• 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.
• Bowles v. Biberman Bros., Inc.
  152 F.2d 700· 3d Cir.· 1945-09-21 ·cited 8×
• Leaf v. Supreme Court OF the State OF Wis.
  979 F.2d 589· 7th Cir.· 1992-11-12 ·cited 7×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars federal district courts from reviewing claims that are inextricably intertwined with state court judgments, but it does not bar claims brought by individuals who were not parties to the state proceedings.
• Robinson v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc.
  823 F.2d 793· 4th Cir.· 1987-07-14 ·cited 7×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination under Title VII or Section 1981, and therefore the district court's judgment for the defendant was correct.
• Fid. & Deposit Co. OF Md. v. S. Utils., Inc.
  726 F.2d 692· 11th Cir.· 1984-03-05 ·cited 7×
  A district court cannot grant a directed verdict without a trial when summary judgment is inappropriate and genuine issues of material fact remain.
• Colle v. Brazos Cnty.
  981 F.2d 237· 5th Cir.· 1993-01-20 ·cited 6×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the notice of appeal was insufficient to confer jurisdiction over all plaintiffs, but that claims against the county and sheriff were adequately pleaded under § 1983.
• Lake Lucerne Civic Ass'n v. Dolphin Stadium Corp.
  801 F. Supp. 684· S.D. Fla.· 1992-07-31 ·cited 6×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that homeowner associations have standing for injunctive relief but not compensatory damages, and denied motions to dismiss based on indispensable parties and Eleventh Amendment immunity, while granting in part motions to strike allegations previously adjudicated.
• Carver v. Bunch
  946 F.2d 451· 6th Cir.· 1991-10-09 ·cited 6×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the pro se plaintiff's complaint solely for failure to respond to a motion to dismiss, without considering the merits or the specific requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
• In re Hall v. Hall
  939 F.2d 802· 9th Cir.· 1991-07-26 ·cited 6×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  A district court may dismiss a bankruptcy case for improper venue, but such dismissal must be without prejudice, and the court cannot make independent factual findings on bad faith filing, which requires remand to the bankruptcy court.
• Comdyne I v. Corbin
  908 F.2d 1142· 3d Cir.· 1990-07-20 ·cited 6×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court should vacate the judgment and remand for a new hearing on the motion for default judgment due to failure to provide direct notice to the litigants as required by circuit precedent.
• Coane v. Ferrara PAN Candy Co.
  898 F.2d 1030· 5th Cir.· 1990-04-24 ·cited 6×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint and imposition of sanctions, finding the attorney's conduct warranted the penalties and that the appeal was frivolous.
• Carter v. Beverly Hills Sav. & Loan Ass'n
  884 F.2d 1186· 9th Cir.· 1989-09-06 ·cited 6×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  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.
• Childers v. The Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. Co.
  881 F.2d 1259· 4th Cir.· 1989-07-28 ·cited 6×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  A federal court has discretion to dismiss meritless state-law claims during its preemption inquiry, and here, the plaintiff's state claims were plainly without merit, warranting summary judgment.
• Davis v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
  871 F.2d 1134· D.C. Cir.· 1989-04-07 ·cited 6×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  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
• Gerhard Bass v. Attardi
  868 F.2d 45· 3d Cir.· 1989-02-14 ·cited 6×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  Members of a New Jersey planning board and their agents are absolutely immune from section 1983 actions in their individual capacities; however, suits against them in their official capacities are treated as suits against the board itself, which has no immunity. The court could n
• Nesmith v. Aerospace
  833 F.2d 1489· 11th Cir.· 1987-12-15 ·cited 6×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court affirmed the judgment for the defendant on the merits and the award of attorney's fees, finding the plaintiff's Title VII claims were without foundation and the award was within the court's discretion.
• Jeffries v. Potomac Dev. Corp.
  822 F.2d 87· D.C. Cir.· 1987-06-26 ·cited 6×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court is bound by existing D.C. precedent (Kurtz) even if it suspects it will be overruled.
• Omega R. Autry v. N.C. Dep't OF Human Res.
  820 F.2d 1384· 4th Cir.· 1987-06-25 ·cited 6×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  A plaintiff in a Title VII disparate treatment case must present evidence that race was a determining factor in the employment decision, not merely that they belong to a minority group and were not promoted.
• Atlanta Shipping Corp., Inc. v. Chem. Bank
  818 F.2d 240· 2d Cir.· 1987-04-29 ·cited 6×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that a plaintiff who invites dismissal by refusing to post a bond may obtain appellate review of prior rulings, but that the district court correctly dismissed the admiralty, fraudulent conveyance, UCC Article 9, and corporate law claims.