Brent L. Sellick v. Frank A. Helson, Also Known as Frank Addison Helton

Ninth Circuit

Brent L. Sellick v. Frank A. Helson, Also Known as Frank Addison Helton

459 F.2d 670, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10198

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 10, 1972

Docket25602

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 459 F.2d 670 (Brent L. Sellick v. Frank A. Helson, Also Known as Frank Addison Helton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brent L. Sellick v. Frank A. Helson, Also Known as Frank Addison Helton, 459 F.2d 670, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10198 (9th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff Brent L. Sellick appeals from orders of the District Court, first dismissing the action without prejudice and with leave for Sellick to amend his complaint, and later dismissing the action with prejudice and refusing to consider a motion made by Sellick.

The first dismissal was premised upon the ground of laches. Thereafter, Sellick took no action in the case for more than twenty months before attempting to file his amended complaint. In such circumstances a court has discretionary power to dismiss an action with prejudice. See Link v. Wabash Railway Co., 370 U.S. 626, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962); Alexander v. Pacific Maritime Assoc., 434 F.2d 281, 283 (9th Cir. 1970). See also Freeman v. Continental Gin Company, 381 F.2d 459, 469 (5th Cir. 1967); Leighton v. One William Street Fund, 12 F.R.Serv.2d 15a.3, case 1, 192-193 (S.D.N.Y.1968). We find no abuse of discretion in the context of this case.

Sellick’s other arguments for reversal are similarly without merit, and we do not think they warrant discussion.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff Brent L. Sellick appeals from orders of the District Court, first dismissing the action without prejudice and with leave for Sellick to amend his complaint, and later dismissing the action with prejudice and refusing to consider a motion made by Sellick.

The first dismissal was premised upon the ground of laches. Thereafter, Sellick took no action in the case for more than twenty months before attempting to file his amended complaint. In such circumstances a court has discretionary power to dismiss an action with prejudice. See Link v. Wabash Railway Co., 370 U.S. 626, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962); Alexander v. Pacific Maritime Assoc., 434 F.2d 281, 283 (9th Cir. 1970). See also Freeman v. Continental Gin Company, 381 F.2d 459, 469 (5th Cir. 1967); Leighton v. One William Street Fund, 12 F.R.Serv.2d 15a.3, case 1, 192-193 (S.D.N.Y.1968). We find no abuse of discretion in the context of this case.

Sellick’s other arguments for reversal are similarly without merit, and we do not think they warrant discussion.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

459 F.2d 670, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brent-l-sellick-v-frank-a-helson-also-known-as-frank-addison-helton-ca9-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack