Edmond G. Pharo Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. W. L. Smith Et Al., Defendants-Appellees., 625 F.2d 1226 (5th Cir. 1980)

Federal Circuits, 5th Cir. (September 18, 1980)

Docket number: 77-1273

Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/edmond-pharo-plaintiffs-appellants-w-l-smith-38390950
Id. vLex: VLEX-38390950

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Document language

Request manual translation

Search in this document

Document options

Sponsored Ads:

Citations:

Loading article preview... cerrar

cerrar

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Cir. - Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 97,567 Edmond G. Pharo Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. W. L. Smith Et Al., Defendants-Appellees., 621 F.2d 656 (5th Cir. 1980)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Cir. - in Re Ben Carter, Petitioner. No. 80-7010. Summary Calendar. [Fn*], 618 F.2d 1093 (5th Cir. 1980)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Cir. - Harold J. O'Brien Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Company of Chicago, a National Banking Association, Defendant-Appellee., 593 F.2d 54 (7th Cir. 1979)

See other documents that cite the same legislation

RSS What's this?

Cited by:

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Cir. - Murray Stein, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., Defendant-Appellee., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Cir. - Graham C. Garner, Etc., Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Tazwell W. Pearson, Individually and as Trustee for Philip Theodore Pyfrom and Lissay Pyfrom, Minors, Robert N. Bussey, Donald N. Baker, Defendants-Appellants, and William M. Bussey, Et Al., Defendants., 732 F.2d 850 (11th Cir. 1984)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Cir. - Howard F. Ransom and Hazel B. Ransom, Plaintiffs-Appellees, Cross-Appellants, v. S & S Food Center, Inc. of Florida, D/B/a Rich Plan of Pensacola, Defendant- Appellant, Cross-Appellee., 700 F.2d 670 (11th Cir. 1983)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Cir. - Paul R. Busch and Linda T. Busch, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Craig Carpenter, George R. Jensen, Ronald D. Burnett, and John Does 1-10, Defendants-Appellees, Securities and Exchange Commission, Amicus Curiae., 827 F.2d 653 (10th Cir. 1987)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Cir. - Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 98,209 Arthur L. Stokes, Et Al., Appellants, v. Lawrence Lokken and Henson & Tully, a Partnership, Appellees., 644 F.2d 779 (8th Cir. 1981)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Cir. - Overseas Inns S.A. P.A., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant-Appellee., 911 F.2d 1146 (5th Cir. 1990)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Cir. - Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 98,291 First National Bank of Las Vegas, New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Estate of Milton B. Russell, Peter B. Edwards, Charles L. Shirley, Jr., Gary M. Mattson, Steven F. Caldwell, Bossier Bank & Trust Company, Dale A. Anderson, Pinemont State Bank, Herman K. Beebe and Jean A. Quartermont, Defendants-Appellees., 657 F.2d 668 (5th Cir. 1981)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - David F. Durham, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Walter A. Kelly, Defendant, and Phillip A. Rennert, and Jay L. Anderson, Defendants-Appellees. Schutzky Distributors, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Walter A. Kelly, Defendant, and Phillip A. Rennert; K. Duane Mccleery; Judith Meyers Kelly; Jay L. Anderson; Settler'S Energy Corporation; Settlers' Energy Resources, Inc.; Michael R. Marshall; Charles Lyndall Stewart; Payne County Operating Company, Defendants-Appellees., 810 F.2d 1500 (9th Cir. 1987) Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Walter A. Kelly, Defendant, and Phillip A. Rennert, and Jay L. Anderson, Defendants-Appellees. Schutzky Distributors, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Walter A. Kelly, Defendant, and Phillip A. Rennert; K. Duane Mccleery; Judith Meyers Kelly; Jay L. Anderson; Settler'S Energy Corporation; Settlers' Energy Resources, Inc.; Michael R. Marshall; Charles Lyndall Stewart; Payne County Operating Company, Defendants-Appellees.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Cir. - Kenneth M. Henson, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross Appellee, v. Columbus Bank and Trust Company, Defendant-Appellee-Cross Appellant., 651 F.2d 320 (5th Cir. 1981)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Cir. - Richard Rheaume, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. the Texas Department of Public Safety, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees., 666 F.2d 925 (5th Cir. 1982)

See all citations to this document

Text:

Morris K. Sirote, Birmingham, Ala., for plaintiffs-appellants.

James O. Spencer, Jr., Birmingham, Ala., for Deltec International Limited.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

(Opinion July 9, 1980, 621 F.2d 656)

In our prior opinion, 5th Cir., 621 F.2d 656, we concluded that the district court dismissed without prejudice plaintiffs' state law causes of action when it granted defendant Deltec International, Ltd. summary judgment on the federal claims. In their petition for rehearing, plaintiffs contend, for the first time in these proceedings, that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing their pendent state law claims because those claims, or at least the one brought under the Alabama Fraudulent Conveyance Act, § 8-9-9, Code of Ala. (1975), though disposed of without prejudice, are now barred by the Alabama statute of limitations. We cannot determine from the record before us whether this issue was presented to the district court at the time Deltec's motion for summary judgment was heard, and we are unable to ascertain whether, as plaintiffs contend, the dismissal of their state law claims will operate with prejudice.

That a plaintiff's state law claims will be time-barred if dismissed is certainly a factor, if not a determinative factor, a district court should consider in deciding whether to maintain jurisdiction over pendent state claims once the federal claims have been resolved. O'Brien v. Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Co., 593 F.2d 54 (7th Cir. 1979) ("plaintiffs should have been permitted to pursue their pendent state claims in the federal actions . . when there [was] a substantial possibility that a subsequent state court suit on the claim [would] be time-barred." Id. at 65). Though plaintiffs have delayed in calling this statute of limitations problem to the court's attention, we think the problem deserves consideration; the appropriate forum to consider it is the district court. See In re Carter, 618 F.2d 1093, 1104-05 (5th Cir. 1980).

The petition for rehearing is, therefore, granted in part, and the cause is remanded to the district court for reconsideration of its order dismissing plaintiffs' pendent state law claims.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REMANDED IN PART.

Sponsored Ads:

Try vLex for FREE for 3 days

Access legal information from United States including:

Constitutions
Forms and Contracts
Legal Books and Journals
Case Law
News and Business
Regulations
U.S. Code

Try vLex without any commitment for 3 days and see why you need it.

3

days of Free Access

Home / United States /

Case Law

vlex /