CHRISTOPHER MARTELLA, APPELLANT,
v.
MARINE COOKS & STEWARDS UNION, SEAFARERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL-CIO, ET AL., APPELLEES
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 the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff's Rule 60(b) motion to reinstate the case.
The district court dismissed the plaintiff's action for failure to comply with pretrial orders. The plaintiff waited five months to file a Rule 60(b) …
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 Sound Discretion Of The District Court cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
The district court, following a hearing, dismisáed this action for plaintiff’s failure to comply with several orders of the court relating to pretrial matters. These orders were based upon various of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and local court rules. Plaintiff did not appeal nor pursue any procedure to reinstate the cause until some five months after the dismissal when he filed a motion, ostensibly under Rule 60(b) (6) Fed.R.Civ.P., to be relieved of the judgment. The district court denied him relief, hence this appeal.
In order to bring himself within the limited area of Rule 60(b) (6) a petitioner is required to establish the existence of extraordinary circumstances which prevented or rendered him unable to prosecute an appeal. Klapprott v. United States, 335 U.S. 601, 69 S.Ct. 384, 93 L.Ed. 266 (1949); Ackermann v. United States, 340 U.S. 193, 71 S.Ct. 209, 95 L.Ed. 207 (1950). Plaintiff made no such showing.
Nor does the record reveal facts, or any fact, which would tend to show that plaintiff’s failure to seek review was due to “excusable neglect,” a ground for relief under Rule 60(b) (1). To the contrary, it discloses plaintiff’s entire lack of diligence and attention to the matter. 60(b) motions are addressed to the sound discretion of the district court. Title v. United States, 263 F. 2d 28 (9th Cir. 1959). As indicated above, denial of plaintiff’s motion was well within that court’s discretion. The judgment is therefore
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Dairl Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992)
-
Alphonso Thompson v. The Hous. Auth. OF the City OF LOS Angeles, 782 F.2d 829 (9th Cir. 1986)
-
Corex Corp. v. United States, 638 F.2d 119 (9th Cir. 1981)
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Klapprott v. United States, 335 U.S. 601 (U.S. 1949)
- Ackermann v. United States, 340 U.S. 193 (U.S. 1950)
- Sam Title v. United States, 263 F.2d 28 (9th Cir. 1959)