TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Jose C. Alvarado v. Maritime Overseas Corporation

Jose C. ALVARADO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARITIME OVERSEAS CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee

Alvarado v. Mar. Overseas Corp., 528 F.2d 605 (5th Cir. 1976)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
March 15, 1976
Docket
No. 75--2776
Judges
Thornberry, Morgan, Roney
Citations
528 F.2d 60521 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 8031976 U.S. App. LEXIS 12397

Opinion — Roney

RONEY, Circuit Judge:

This case involved the identical issues presented in LeCompte v. Mr. Chip, Inc., 528 F.2d 601 (5th Cir. 1976), also decided this day.

LeCompte controls the dis *606 position of this case. Accordingly, we vacate and remand.

Arising in the same court as LeCompte , this case involved the identical conditions affixed to a 41(a)(2) order of dismissal “without prejudice.” The conditions were: (1) any subsequent suit must be filed in the present court; (2) plaintiff must show a need of extraordinary circumstances before reopening the case; and (3) an affirmative demonstration to the court’s satisfaction that a valid cause of action can be maintained against defendant.

What makes the instant case even stronger than LeCompte for reconsideration by the district court is the fact that defendant herein never objected to plaintiff’s motion for dismissal without prejudice. Although some type of curative conditions can be imposed to protect the defendant’s interests, there is no unshakable mandate that conditions be imposed in all cases. This is particularly true where defendant has not objected to the dismissal for this itself evidences a lack of any prejudice upon defendant.

See 9 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2366, at 177 (1971). Moreover, defendant must not have believed the conditions were necessary to protect his interests for he failed to file a brief in this Court to oppose the contentions asserted by plaintiff.

We vacate the district court’s order and remand for a redetermination in light of LeCompte v. Mr. Chip, Inc., supra.

Vacate and remand.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1978: 31979: 11985: 12013: 119782026peak 1978 · 3

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.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Lecompte v. Chip, Inc., 528 F.2d 601 (5th Cir. 1976) 256

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list