Edmond G. Pharo v. W. L. Smith
Edmond G. PHARO Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. W. L. SMITH Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion
*1227 PER CURIAM:
In our prior opinion, 5th Cir., 621 F.2d 656 , we concluded that the district court dismissed without prejudice plaintiffs’ state law causes of action when it granted defendant Deltec International, Ltd. summary-judgment on the federal claims. In their petition for rehearing, plaintiffs contend, for the first time in these proceedings, that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing their pendent state law claims because those claims, or at least the one brought under the Alabama Fraudulent Conveyance Act, § 8-9-9, Code of Ala. (1975), though disposed of without prejudice, are now barred by the Alabama statute of limitations. We cannot determine from the record before us whether this issue was presented to the district court at the time Deltec’s motion for summary judgment was heard, and we are unable to ascertain whether, as plaintiffs contend, the dismissal of their state law claims will operate with prejudice.
That a plaintiff’s state law claims will be time-barred if dismissed is certainly a factor, if not a determinative factor, a district court should consider in deciding whether to maintain jurisdiction over pendent state claims once the federal claims have been resolved.
O’Brien v. Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Co., 593 F.2d 54 (7th Cir. 1979) (“plaintiffs should have been permitted to pursue their pendent state claims in the federal actions . when there [was] a substantial possibility that a subsequent state court suit on the claim [would] be time-barred.”
Id.
at 65 ). Though plaintiffs have delayed in calling this statute of limitations problem to the court’s attention, we think the problem deserves consideration; the appropriate forum to consider it is the district court.
See In re Carter, 618 F.2d 1093, 1104-05 (5th Cir. 1980).
The petition for rehearing is, therefore, granted in part, and the cause is remanded to the district court for reconsideration of its order dismissing plaintiffs’ pendent state law claims.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REMANDED IN PART.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 3 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(motion to amend denied because filed nine months after a motion for summary judgment)
-
(“That a plaintiff’s state law claim will be time barred if dismissed is certainly a factor, if not a determinative factor, a district court should consider in deciding whether to maintain jurisdiction over pendent state claims. . . .”)
Cited by 89 cases
View all citing references →- U.S. Courts of Appeals42
- Federal District Courts34
- Bankruptcy Courts1
- Federal Specialty Courts1
- State Highest Courts2
- State Appellate Courts8
- Territorial Courts1
Relies on it most ⓘ
- Kenneth M. Henson -Cross v. Columbus Bank and Trust Company -Cross
- Briggs v. Sterner
- Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Lester P
- Quality Foods De Centro America, S.A. And Duroparts De El Salvador, S.A. v. Latin American Agribusiness Development Corporation, S.A.
- L.A. Draper & Son v. Wheelabrator-Frye, Inc., a Corporation Hessco Industrial Supply, Inc., a Corporation Fred Z. Hester, an Individual
- LAC Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Voigt
Most recent
- Lou v. Lopinto
- Fletcher v. City of Madison
- Todd Enright v. Asclepius Panacea, LLC Asclepius Panacea GP, LLC Daily Pharmacy, LLC Daily Pharmacy GP, LLC And Toth Enterprises II, P .A. D/B/A Victory Medical Center
- Travers v. Bank of America, N.A. (In re Travers)
- Ressler v. Clay County
- AMERIQUEST MORTG. CO. v. Scheb
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.