George Brown v. Harlan E. O'leary, the First National Bank of Hereford, Hereford, Texas, and William P. Maroski
George BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Harlan E. O’LEARY, the First National Bank of Hereford, Hereford, Texas, and William P. Maroski, Defendants-Appellees
Opinion
PER CURIAM:
This diversity damage suit was specially set for trial on June 17, 1974, before The Honorable Ernest Guinn. On June 9, 1974, Judge Guinn expired. The Clerk advised Scogin, counsel for plaintiff, that he would be notified of a new trial date. In mid-September, 1974, plaintiff’s coun *486 sel learned by chance and later confirmed that the action had been dismissed sua sponte by the district court on July 31, 1974, for want of prosecution because of the failure of Scogin to appear at a docket call. Counsel promptly filed a motion to reinstate the cause, later supported by an affidavit, on the ground that he had received no notice of the July docket call and that he would be prepared to try the case at any time set by the Court. Interrogatories and answers had been filed, depositions completed, and proposed pretrial orders submitted. Notwithstanding counsel’s representation of lack of notice, the Court denied plaintiff’s motion to reinstate the cause. We reverse.
There is no evidence of a false claim or dilatory action by plaintiff’s counsel. On the contrary, discovery had been completed and the cause was ready for trial within five months after it was filed. For aught that appears, although the Clerk may have mailed the notice, counsel for plaintiff did not receive it.
We have repeatedly said that, while we will not disturb the district court’s exercise of sound discretion in keeping its calendar under control, we will not approve sanctions that are not commensurate with the dereliction. Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 1962, 370 U.S. 626 , 82 S.Ct. 1386 , 8 L.Ed.2d 734 ; Flaksa v. Little River Marine Const. Co., 5 Cir. 1968, 389 F.2d 885 .
See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b), Durham v. Florida East Coast Ry. Co., 5 Cir. 1967, 385 F.2d 366 ; Council of Federated Organizations et al. v. Mize, 5 Cir. 1964, 339 F.2d 898 . Here, instead of dereliction there was diligence, a lost or misdelivered notice, no motion for default, and no showing of prejudice to any party. Yet the court refused to reinstate its sua sponte dismissal. This was clearly an abuse of discretion.
The judgment is reversed and this cause is remanded to the district court with directions to reinstate the case on the docket for trial on the merits.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(explaining that we “will not disturb the district court’s exercise of sound discretion in keeping its calendar under control”)
Cited by 8 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- Frank Burden v. Thomas Larry Yates and Marion H. Reece
- Willie E. BOAZMAN v. ECONOMICS LABORATORY, INC.
- Louis Edward GREEN v. FORNEY ENGINEERING COMPANY
- International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers, Local 66, Afl-Cio v. Leona Lee Insulation and Specialties, Inc.
- Williams v. Edward D. Jones & Co.
- Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Garrett (In re Garrett)
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.