PAUL BARTSCH, APPELLANT
v.
CHAMBERLIN COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a prior dismissal for failure to state a claim, which did not specify otherwise, operates as an adjudication on the merits and bars a subsequent action on the same claim.
Appellant filed an action for breach of contract which was dismissed for failure to state a claim. Appellant then filed a second action on the same cl…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Dismissal For Failure To State A Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant filed an action in the District Court against the appellee for breach of contract. Appellee moved to dismiss the action for the reason that the complaint’failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. By order of July 3, 1957, the District Judge granted appellee’s. motion and. ordered “that'the complaint herein is hereby dismissed at plaintiff’s costs.” No appeal was taken.
On September 30, 1957, appellant filed the present action m-zhe District Court against the appellee upon the same alleged cause of action. Appellee filed a motion for summary judgment in which it referred to the order of July 3, 1957, in the first case and stated that it constituted a complete bar against the prosecution by the appellant of this action. The District Judge ruled “Motion granted, pursuant to Rule 41(b).”, and an order was entered dismissing the action at appellant’s costs. This appeal followed.
Since the order of dismissal in the first case was not by reason of lack of jurisdiction or improper venue and did not specify that it was not upon the merits, under Rule 41(b), Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. it operated as an adjudication upon the merits. Van Brode Milling Co. v. Kellogg Co., D.C. Del., 113 F.Supp. 845, 847; Bartfield v. Parkhurst, D.C.Puerto Rico, 117 F.Supp. 82, 83. Appellant did not request leave to amend or that the order of dismissal provide that it was without prejudice. The District Judge correctly ruled that it operated as a bar to the present action. American National Bank & Trust Co. v. United States, 79 U.S.App.D.C. 62, 142 F. 2d 571.
The judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cemer v. Marathon OIL Co., 583 F.2d 830 (6th Cir. 1978)
-
Shaw v. Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp., 554 F.2d 786 (6th Cir. 1977)
-
Ouida J. Weissinger v. United States, 423 F.2d 782 (5th Cir. 1968)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Am. Nat. Bank & Tr. Co. of Chicago v. United States, 142 F.2d 571 (D.C. Cir. 1944)