William T. Carroll, Chris E. E. Makaila and John Thylstrup v. Pacific Maritime Association, a Corporation

Ninth Circuit

William T. Carroll, Chris E. E. Makaila and John Thylstrup v. Pacific Maritime Association, a Corporation

405 F.2d 1213

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 30, 1969

Docket20835

StatusPublished

This text of 405 F.2d 1213 (William T. Carroll, Chris E. E. Makaila and John Thylstrup v. Pacific Maritime Association, a Corporation) 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

William T. Carroll, Chris E. E. Makaila and John Thylstrup v. Pacific Maritime Association, a Corporation, 405 F.2d 1213 (9th Cir. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

When this case was first presented here, this court had decided Williams v. Pacific Maritime Association, 384 F.2d 935, in which we held that the Fourth Amended Complaint in that case set forth a sufficient claim to permit the plaintiffs to go to trial. Also, at that time, petition for certiorari had been filed in the Supreme Court. Certiorari was denied March 18, 1968, Williams v. Pacific Maritime Association, 390 U.S. 987, 88 S.Ct. 1181, 19 L.Ed.2d 1290.

In this ease the court found the third amended complaint to be insufficient and dismissed the action. As the issues sought to be raised here have certain resemblances to those present in Williams, we are of the view that this case should be remanded to the district court with leave to plaintiffs to amend their complaint, should they be so advised, so as to permit the court to proceed to hear and determine the matter upon the evidénce.

Accordingly, the cause is remanded to the district court with directions to proceed as herein suggested.

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

PER CURIAM:

When this case was first presented here, this court had decided Williams v. Pacific Maritime Association, 384 F.2d 935, in which we held that the Fourth Amended Complaint in that case set forth a sufficient claim to permit the plaintiffs to go to trial. Also, at that time, petition for certiorari had been filed in the Supreme Court. Certiorari was denied March 18, 1968, Williams v. Pacific Maritime Association, 390 U.S. 987, 88 S.Ct. 1181, 19 L.Ed.2d 1290.

In this ease the court found the third amended complaint to be insufficient and dismissed the action. As the issues sought to be raised here have certain resemblances to those present in Williams, we are of the view that this case should be remanded to the district court with leave to plaintiffs to amend their complaint, should they be so advised, so as to permit the court to proceed to hear and determine the matter upon the evidénce.

Accordingly, the cause is remanded to the district court with directions to proceed as herein suggested.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

405 F.2d 1213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-t-carroll-chris-e-e-makaila-and-john-thylstrup-v-pacific-ca9-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack