Rule 41(B)

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

• Hall v. Comm'r, Internal Revenue Serv. (Department OF Treasury)
  805 F.2d 1511· 11th Cir.· 1986-12-16 ·cited 6×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the statutory prohibition against appellate review of district court determinations under 26 U.S.C. § 7429 does not bar appeals from dismissals based solely on procedural grounds, and that automatic dismissal for failure to comply with a local rule requiring a
• S.A. Andes v. Versant Corp.
  788 F.2d 1033· 4th Cir.· 1986-04-22 ·cited 6×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice, but vacated the dismissal with prejudice due to lack of notice and opportunity to be heard.
• Kickapoo OIL Co. v. Clark OIL & Ref. Corp.
  788 F.2d 11· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1985-12-19 ·cited 6×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the expert testimony due to late disclosure and did not err in directing a verdict for the defendant due to insufficient evidence.
• Joseph v. ST. Charles Parish Sch. Bd.
  736 F.2d 1036· 5th Cir.· 1984-07-19 ·cited 6×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  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×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  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.
• Schooley v. Kennedy
  712 F.2d 372· 8th Cir.· 1983-07-22 ·cited 6×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the pro se appellants' case without prejudice for failure to comply with a pretrial order.
• United States Freight Co. v. Penn Cent. Transp. Co.
  716 F.2d 954· 2d Cir.· 1983-06-14 ·cited 6×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that striking a defendant's answer and entering a default judgment was not an abuse of discretion for repeated discovery violations.
• ACE Novelty Co., Inc. v. Gooding Amusement Co., Inc.
  664 F.2d 761· 9th Cir.· 1981-12-21 ·cited 6×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing the action for failure to prosecute without adequate findings or clear indication of plaintiff's obligation.
• Caldwell v. Camp
  594 F.2d 705· 8th Cir.· 1979-03-20 ·cited 6×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that federal abstention under the Younger doctrine is appropriate for both equitable and damage claims related to an ongoing state forfeiture proceeding, but the dismissal should be without prejudice.
• Joseph Muller Corp. Zurich v. Societe Anonyme de Gerance ET D'Armement
  508 F.2d 814· 2d Cir.· 1974-12-31 ·cited 6×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action for failure to prosecute due to an unexplained and unreasonable delay in service.
• Int'l Video Corp. v. Ampex Corp.
  484 F.2d 634· 9th Cir.· 1973-09-04 ·cited 6×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that dismissals for lack of jurisdiction are not governed by Rule 41 and that a counterclaim must also be dismissed if the main claim lacks a justiciable controversy.
• United States v. Inter-American Shipping Corp.
  455 F.2d 938· 5th Cir.· 1972-02-03 ·cited 6×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that dismissal of the action was an abuse of discretion because there was no clear record of delay or contumacious conduct by the plaintiff.
• Food Basket, Inc. v. Albertson's, Inc.
  416 F.2d 937· 10th Cir.· 1969-10-15 ·cited 6×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action for failure to prosecute with reasonable diligence.
• United States v. Costello
  275 F.2d 355· 2d Cir.· 1960-02-17 ·cited 6×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the prior dismissal of a denaturalization complaint, even if not explicitly stated as 'without prejudice,' does not operate as an adjudication on the merits under Rule 41(b) when the dismissal was mandated by a superior court due to a procedural defect.
• Rayford J. Wright & Nat'l Sur. Corp. v. Lumbermen's Mut. Cas. Co.
  242 F.2d 1· 5th Cir.· 1957-02-27 ·cited 6×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the action for want of prosecution based on Louisiana Civil Code Article 3519, as that article pertains to abandonment and does not bar a subsequent suit.
• Huntington Palisades Prop. Owners Corp. v. Metro. Fin. Corp. of Cal.
  180 F.2d 132· 9th Cir.· 1950-02-07 ·cited 6×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the property owners' corporation lacked the authority to modify deed restrictions through a board resolution, and plaintiff was not bound by the attempted changes due to lack of contractual basis or estoppel.
• Gemeral Earnest Berry, Jr. v. CIGNA/Rsi-Cigna
  975 F.2d 1188· 5th Cir.· 1992-10-29 ·cited 5×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the plaintiff's suit for failure to prosecute without a clear record of delay or consideration of lesser sanctions.
• Murphy v. Klein Tools, Inc.
  935 F.2d 1127· 10th Cir.· 1991-06-07 ·cited 5×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  A dismissal for failure to comply with the statute of limitations, when entered with prejudice by a federal court, operates as an adjudication on the merits and is res judicata, barring a subsequent action on the same claim.
• Simpson v. Nancy Welch, M.D.
  900 F.2d 33· 4th Cir.· 1990-04-05 ·cited 5×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the dismissal of the complaint was proper, but the award of sanctions under Rule 11 was not authorized. The award of attorneys' fees and costs was vacated and remanded.
• CMS Software Design Sys., Inc. v. Info Designs, Inc.
  785 F.2d 1246· 5th Cir.· 1986-03-28 ·cited 5×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  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.
• Evans v. Davie Truckers, Inc.
  769 F.2d 1012· 4th Cir.· 1985-08-14 ·cited 5×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the plaintiff established a prima facie case of retaliation under Title VII by showing protected activity, adverse employment action, and a causal connection, and thus the case should not have been dismissed.
• Judkins v. Beech Aircraft Corp.
  723 F.2d 818· 11th Cir.· 1984-01-23 ·cited 5×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that filing a right-to-sue letter and requesting counsel satisfies the statutory time limit for bringing a Title VII action, and dismissal for a minor delay in filing a more exact complaint is an abuse of discretion.
• Borgen v. Richfield OIL Corp.
  257 F.2d 505· 9th Cir.· 1958-06-23 ·cited 5×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the case as a matter of law, as the evidence presented questions of fact for the jury regarding negligence and unseaworthiness.
• Govas v. Chalmers
  965 F.2d 298· 7th Cir.· 1992-06-02 ·cited 4×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  A district court has the discretion to dismiss a case for discovery violations when a party demonstrates a pattern of dilatory and evasive tactics and willfully persists in such tactics despite explicit warnings and court orders.
• Roth v. Am. Hosp. Supply Corp.
  965 F.2d 862· 10th Cir.· 1992-05-27 ·cited 4×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that Roth was an employee of Agronomics, not Hospital Supply, for ERISA purposes, and therefore lacked standing to sue Hospital Supply under ERISA.
• Ackley v. Western Conference OF Teamsters
  958 F.2d 1463· 9th Cir.· 1992-02-21 ·cited 4×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The LMRDA does not require union leaders to fully disclose all terms of a collective bargaining agreement before ratification, nor does it impose minimum disclosure requirements when no statutorily created right to vote exists.
• Johnson v. U.S. Dep't OF the Treas.
  939 F.2d 820· 9th Cir.· 1991-07-29 ·cited 4×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that dismissal for failure to prosecute was premature without a warning, and the district court should have ruled on the plaintiff's request for appointed counsel before dismissing the case.
• In re the Complaint of Associated Elec. Coop., Inc. v. In re Mid-America Transp. Co.
  931 F.2d 1266· 8th Cir.· 1991-04-26 ·cited 4×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that a state statute barring contribution claims against a settling tortfeasor does not apply in maritime law, and adopted the proportional fault approach, which reduces the non-settling defendant's claim by the settling tortfeasor's equitable share.
• Vakalis v. Shawmut Corp.
  925 F.2d 34· 1st Cir.· 1991-02-11 ·cited 4×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  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.
• The Indep. Fed'n OF Flight Attendants v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.
  878 F.2d 254· 8th Cir.· 1989-06-28 ·cited 4×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the flight attendants' claims, finding no clear error in the factual determinations made after trial.
• Herbert v. Saffell
  877 F.2d 267· 4th Cir.· 1989-06-08 ·cited 4×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the case under Rule 41(b), but that the 'as is' clause did not bar fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims against the sellers. Claims against the realtors were properly dismissed.
• Sullivan v. City OF Cleveland Heights
  869 F.2d 961· 6th Cir.· 1989-03-15 ·cited 4×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  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.
• Keeler Brass Co. v. Cont'l Brass Co.
  862 F.2d 1063· 4th Cir.· 1988-12-07 ·cited 4×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the district court's finding of independent creation, which rebutted the presumption of copyright infringement, was not clearly erroneous.
• Manis v. Sterling
  862 F.2d 679· 8th Cir.· 1988-12-02 ·cited 4×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the motion for an out-of-time appeal by two plaintiffs was denied due to untimeliness, and the dismissal of the third plaintiff's complaint was affirmed because he failed to plead conspiracy with sufficient specificity.
• United States v. Fleet Wallace Maull
  855 F.2d 514· 8th Cir.· 1988-08-11 ·cited 4×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The dissenting judge believes the Colorado civil proceeding dismissal operated as a bar to the later assertion of the same claim due to res judicata.
• Sheets v. Yamaha Motors Corp.
  849 F.2d 179· 5th Cir.· 1988-07-12 ·cited 4×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to maintain reasonable secrecy for his invention, thus barring claims under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act and unjust enrichment. The court remanded the sanctions issue for further clarification.
• Chaney v. S. Ry. Co.
  847 F.2d 718· 11th Cir.· 1988-06-16 ·cited 4×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the district court erred in not fully considering the plaintiff's disparate impact claim, requiring a remand, but affirmed the dismissal of the disparate treatment claim.
• McNEAL v. B.H. Papasan
  842 F.2d 787· 5th Cir.· 1988-04-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that dismissal with prejudice is an extreme sanction requiring a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct and a finding that lesser sanctions would not suffice, neither of which were adequately established.
• Kern OIL & Ref. Co. v. Tenneco OIL Co.
  792 F.2d 1380· 9th Cir.· 1986-06-24 ·cited 4×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  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.
• Thomsen v. United Parcel Serv., Inc.
  792 F.2d 115· 8th Cir.· 1986-05-30 ·cited 4×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
• United States v. State OF Ark.
  791 F.2d 1573· 8th Cir.· 1986-05-29 ·cited 4×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  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
• Efrain Martinez Class v. Caribe Hilton Hotel & Union Gastronomica
  784 F.2d 12· 1st Cir.· 1986-02-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a specific local rule, requiring substantial proceedings within six months, foreclosed the use of a more general discretionary rule for dismissal when those proceedings had occurred.
• United States Inv. & Dev. Corp. v. Antone B. Cruz, Jr.
  780 F.2d 166· 1st Cir.· 1986-01-02 ·cited 4×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to amend the complaint and in dismissing the case for failure to prosecute.
• Dorethea N. Hornbuckle v. Arco OIL & GAS Co.
  770 F.2d 1321· 5th Cir.· 1985-09-16 ·cited 4×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Title VII suit as a sanction for failure to prosecute, finding that the plaintiff had the ability to pay the assessed monetary sanction.
• Godesa A. Bomate v. Ford Motor Co.
  761 F.2d 713· D.C. Cir.· 1985-04-02 ·cited 4×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case for want of prosecution, given the plaintiff's repeated delays and failure to heed warnings.
• Consuelo Mercado v. Austin Police Dep't
  754 F.2d 1266· 5th Cir.· 1985-03-14 ·cited 4×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  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.
• Tenneco Resins, Inc. v. Reeves Bros., Inc.
  752 F.2d 630· Fed. Cir.· 1985-01-10 ·cited 4×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Tenneco's repeated motions to amend its pleadings to assert patent invalidity due to undue delay and prejudice to the opposing party.
• McCLOUD River R.R. Co. v. Sabine River Forest Prods., Inc.
  735 F.2d 879· 5th Cir.· 1984-07-09 ·cited 4×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the defendant waived objections to the summary judgment procedure by not raising them below and that the dismissal of the counterclaim with prejudice was an abuse of discretion without considering lesser sanctions.
• 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.
• Local # 850 v. T.I.M.E.-DC, Inc.
  705 F.2d 1275· 10th Cir.· 1983-04-22 ·cited 4×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the district court properly exercised its authority by ordering tripartite arbitration to resolve conflicting work assignment arbitration awards, and that the appeal was mooted by the appellant's subsequent agreement to tripartite arbitration.