Liberi P. Berardi v. The Pure Oil Corporation

Sixth Circuit

Liberi P. Berardi v. The Pure Oil Corporation

456 F.2d 98, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10766

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedMarch 14, 1972

Docket71-1611

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 456 F.2d 98 (Liberi P. Berardi v. The Pure Oil Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Liberi P. Berardi v. The Pure Oil Corporation, 456 F.2d 98, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10766 (6th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellants filed a complaint in the District Court that purported to assert three “causes of action.” The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted but allowed appellants leave to amend to cure defects that the court specifically noted. Appellants then filed an amended complaint, which the court again dismissed for the reason that appellants had not complied sufficiently with the court’s orders and thus had not stated claims upon which relief could be granted. Pursuant to the court’s directions, appellants filed a second amended complaint. This time the court found that appellants’ first “cause of action” did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted and that appellants’ second “cause of action” was defective in the manner twice previously specified. Accordingly, the court dismissed the complaint with prejudice for failure to state claims upon which relief could be granted and for failure to comply with the court’s prior orders. This appeal followed.

Appellants’ counsel has conceded in argument upon this appeal that the first “cause of action” did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and we therefore affirm the judgment of the *99 District Court with respect to this part of the complaint. With respect to the remainder of the complaint, we are hard-pressed to find an abuse of discretion in the court’s dismissal, and do so only because we believe that the interests of justice require that appellants be afforded one more opportunity to conform their pleadings to the court’s orders. Therefore, with respect to the first “cause of action” stated in the complaint, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed, and with respect to the remainder of the complaint, the judgment of the District Court is reversed and the case is remanded with directions to allow appellants leave to amend their complaint to conform specifically to the previous orders of the District Court and to such further requirements as the court in its discretion may direct.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellants filed a complaint in the District Court that purported to assert three “causes of action.” The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted but allowed appellants leave to amend to cure defects that the court specifically noted. Appellants then filed an amended complaint, which the court again dismissed for the reason that appellants had not complied sufficiently with the court’s orders and thus had not stated claims upon which relief could be granted. Pursuant to the court’s directions, appellants filed a second amended complaint. This time the court found that appellants’ first “cause of action” did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted and that appellants’ second “cause of action” was defective in the manner twice previously specified. Accordingly, the court dismissed the complaint with prejudice for failure to state claims upon which relief could be granted and for failure to comply with the court’s prior orders. This appeal followed.

Appellants’ counsel has conceded in argument upon this appeal that the first “cause of action” did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and we therefore affirm the judgment of the *99 District Court with respect to this part of the complaint. With respect to the remainder of the complaint, we are hard-pressed to find an abuse of discretion in the court’s dismissal, and do so only because we believe that the interests of justice require that appellants be afforded one more opportunity to conform their pleadings to the court’s orders. Therefore, with respect to the first “cause of action” stated in the complaint, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed, and with respect to the remainder of the complaint, the judgment of the District Court is reversed and the case is remanded with directions to allow appellants leave to amend their complaint to conform specifically to the previous orders of the District Court and to such further requirements as the court in its discretion may direct.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

456 F.2d 98, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10766, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/liberi-p-berardi-v-the-pure-oil-corporation-ca6-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack