Donald W. Melton v. Maritime Overseas Corporation

Fourth Circuit

Donald W. Melton v. Maritime Overseas Corporation

432 F.2d 108, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 6949, 1971 A.M.C. 1733

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedOctober 13, 1970

Docket14401

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 432 F.2d 108 (Donald W. Melton v. Maritime Overseas Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Donald W. Melton v. Maritime Overseas Corporation, 432 F.2d 108, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 6949, 1971 A.M.C. 1733 (4th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Donald W. Melton, plaintiff below, a merchant seaman, sought to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained while employed and serving on board defendant’s vessel.

In May 1969, at a pretrial conference, the case was set for trial on November 25, 1969. Between these dates Melton’s counsel wrote four letters to advise and remind plaintiff of the trial date, the fourth letter having ^been sent on November 4, 1969. The record discloses that these communications were received.

Immediately prior to the trial date plaintiff’s counsel learned for the first time that plaintiff was then on board a vessel, unidentified by name, which had left California about twelve days prior to the trial date. This information was supplied by Melton's parents.

On November 24, 1969, plaintiff’s counsel orally moved the district court for a continuance because of plaintiff’s absence. The motion was overruled and the court advised counsel to proceed with the trial on the following day. On November 25 counsel filed a formal motion for a continuance or in the alternative a motion for dismissal without prejudice; also a supporting affidavit. Both motions were denied. Plaintiff’s counsel declined to proceed to trial in the absence of his client and the court thereupon dismissed the case with prejudice, awarding costs to the defendant.

We affirm the judgment below. Davis v. United Fruit Company, 402 F.2d 328 *109 (2 Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1085, 89 S.Ct. 869, 21 L.Ed.2d 777 (1969); Torino v. Texaco, Inc., 378 F.2d 268 (3 Cir. 1967); Jameson v. DuComb, 275 F.2d 293 (7 Cir. 1960).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Donald W. Melton, plaintiff below, a merchant seaman, sought to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained while employed and serving on board defendant’s vessel.

In May 1969, at a pretrial conference, the case was set for trial on November 25, 1969. Between these dates Melton’s counsel wrote four letters to advise and remind plaintiff of the trial date, the fourth letter having ^been sent on November 4, 1969. The record discloses that these communications were received.

Immediately prior to the trial date plaintiff’s counsel learned for the first time that plaintiff was then on board a vessel, unidentified by name, which had left California about twelve days prior to the trial date. This information was supplied by Melton's parents.

On November 24, 1969, plaintiff’s counsel orally moved the district court for a continuance because of plaintiff’s absence. The motion was overruled and the court advised counsel to proceed with the trial on the following day. On November 25 counsel filed a formal motion for a continuance or in the alternative a motion for dismissal without prejudice; also a supporting affidavit. Both motions were denied. Plaintiff’s counsel declined to proceed to trial in the absence of his client and the court thereupon dismissed the case with prejudice, awarding costs to the defendant.

We affirm the judgment below. Davis v. United Fruit Company, 402 F.2d 328 *109 (2 Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1085, 89 S.Ct. 869, 21 L.Ed.2d 777 (1969); Torino v. Texaco, Inc., 378 F.2d 268 (3 Cir. 1967); Jameson v. DuComb, 275 F.2d 293 (7 Cir. 1960).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

432 F.2d 108, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 6949, 1971 A.M.C. 1733, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/donald-w-melton-v-maritime-overseas-corporation-ca4-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack