JOHN PROUD, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND OF HEATHER PROUD, A MINOR, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE

9th Cir. | 1983-04-26
No. 82-4692
Before BROWNING, WRIGHT and WALLACE, Circuit Judges.
704 F.2d 1099 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (1983) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.


Holding

The court held that an order dismissing a complaint with leave to amend is not a final, appealable order unless the plaintiff cannot possibly save the action by amendment.


Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiffs sued the United States for negligence after a minor was injured diving into a pool in Haleakala National Park. The district court dismissed…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

PER CURIAM:

This is a negligence action against the United States for injuries the minor plaintiff sustained diving into a natural pool in Haleakala National Park. The district court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend within 60 days, reasoning that Hawaii’s recreational land use law precluded relief for simple negligence. See Hawaii Rev.Stat. §§ 520-2(1), -3.

The appealed order, which dismissed the complaint but not the action, is not final and appealable unless special circumstances demonstrate that the trial court found plaintiffs could not save the action by any amendment of the complaint they could reasonably be expected to make. California v. Harvier, 700 F. 2d 1217, at 1218 (9th Cir.1983).

Here, plaintiffs argued below that they could state a claim for willful or malicious failure to guard or warn. ° See Hawaii Rev. Stat. § 520-5(1). They could have saved their action by amending the complaint to make this claim explicit. It is immaterial that plaintiffs decided not to amend. The district court was not advised of that decision and no final judgment was entered.

As the exception to the rule of nonappealability was not satisfied, the order was not appealable. The appeal is dismissed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw