Jose C. Alvarado v. Maritime Overseas Corporation

Fifth Circuit

Jose C. Alvarado v. Maritime Overseas Corporation

528 F.2d 605, 21 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 803, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 12397

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 15, 1976

Docket75--2776

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 528 F.2d 605 (Jose C. Alvarado v. Maritime Overseas Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jose C. Alvarado v. Maritime Overseas Corporation, 528 F.2d 605, 21 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 803, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 12397 (5th Cir. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

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.

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

528 F.2d 605, 21 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 803, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 12397, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jose-c-alvarado-v-maritime-overseas-corporation-ca5-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack