Christopher Martella v. Marine Cooks & Stewards Union, Seafarers International Union of North America, Afl-Cio
Christopher MARTELLA, Appellant, v. MARINE COOKS & STEWARDS UNION, SEAFARERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL-CIO, Et Al., Appellees
Opinion
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.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 11 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(denying Rule 60 motion due to “lack of 2 diligence and attention to the matter”)
-
("Insufficient showings for relief [under Rule 60(b)(1)] ... include when the party or attorney did not act diligently")
-
(“60(b) motions are addressed to the sound discretion of the district court.” (internal citation omitted))
-
(“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.”)
-
(“In order to bring 1 himself within the limited area of Rule 60(b)(6)
-
(burden of proof under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6))
Cited by 95 cases
View all citing references →- U.S. Courts of Appeals31
- Federal District Courts51
- Bankruptcy Courts4
- Federal Specialty Courts2
- State Highest Courts2
- State Appellate Courts5
Relies on it most ⓘ
- Community Dental Services, Dba Smilecare Dental Group v. Stuart Tani, Dds
- Inland Concrete Enterprises, Inc. v. Kraft
- Regan v. South Central Regional Medical Center
- Shelia Regan v. South Central Regional Medical Center
- Dairl Johnson Claudine Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.
- Alphonso Thompson v. The Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles, a Public Corporation
Most recent
- Curtis Jones, Jr. v. Ann Shea
- Intelligent SCM LLC v. Marc Lauzon, Angela Lauzon, Tribike Transport LLC, and Does 1–300
- Joey Paul Johnston, Ilene J. Lashinsky, United States Trustee v. Joey Paul Johnston
- Anthony McGee v. The City of Hercules
- Carl Sidney Race v. James Salmonsen
- Mohamed Abdalla Mahmoud v. Holz Jeffery
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.