Keith M. Rhinehart, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Beverly Stauffer, Defendant-Appellee., 638 F.2d 1169 (9th Cir. 1980)

Federal Circuits, 9th Cir. (August 13, 1980)

Docket number: 77-3888


Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/keith-rhinehart-beverly-stauffer-defendant-36970665
Id. vLex: VLEX-36970665

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

Document language

Search in this document

Sponsored Ads:


FeediconRSS What's this?

Cited by:

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - Ida Hudson, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Moore Business Forms, Inc., a Corp., Joe Mcarthure, Et Al, Defendants, and Law Firm of Littler, Mendelson, Fastiff & Tichy, a Professional Corp., and the Individual Attorneys and Members of that Firm, Wesley J. Fastiff, Maureen E. Mcclain & Henry D. Lederman, Attorneys, Appellants., 827 F.2d 450 (9th Cir. 1987) Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Moore Business Forms, Inc., a Corp., Joe Mcarthure, Et Al, Defendants, and Law Firm of Littler, Mendelson, Fastiff & Tichy, a Professional Corp., and the Individual Attorneys and Members of that Firm, Wesley J. Fastiff, Maureen E. Mcclain & Henry D. Lederman, Attorneys, Appellants.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - 48 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 898, 2 Indiv.Empl.Rts.Cas. 1049 Ida Hudson, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Moore Business Forms, Inc., a Corp., Joe Mcarthure, Et Al., Defendants, and Law Firm of Littler, Mendelson, Fastiff & Tichy, a Professional Corp., and the Individual Attorneys and Members of that Firm, Wesley J. Fastiff, Maureen E. Mcclain & Henry D. Lederman, Attorneys, Appellants., 836 F.2d 1156 (9th Cir. 1988) 2 Indiv.Empl.Rts.Cas. 1049 Ida Hudson, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Moore Business Forms, Inc., a Corp., Joe Mcarthure, Et Al., Defendants, and Law Firm of Littler, Mendelson, Fastiff & Tichy, a Professional Corp., and the Individual Attorneys and Members of that Firm, Wesley J. Fastiff, Maureen E. Mcclain & Henry D. Lederman, Attorneys, Appellants.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Cir. - Notice: Seventh Circuit Rule 53(B)(2) States Unpublished Orders Shall Not Be Cited or Used as Precedent Except To Support a Claim of Res Judicata, Collateral Estoppel or Law of the Case in Any Federal Court Within the Circuit. Isaac Roby, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. George Skupien, Defendant-Appellee., 972 F.2d 352 (7th Cir. 1992)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - Richard L. Zaldivar, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. City of Los Angeles, Et Al., Defendants, and Margaret Salazar, Et Al., Intervenors-Appellees., 780 F.2d 823 (9th Cir. 1986)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Cir. - Marina Management Services, Inc.,and Lisa Petti Ellis, Appellants/Cross-Appellees v. Vessel My Girls, and John N. Singleton, Appellees/Cross-Appellants, 202 F.3d 315 (D.C. Cir. 2000)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - Optyl Eyewear Fashion International Corporation, a New York Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Style Companies, Ltd., a California Corporation, Defendant, Lewis Anten, a Professional Corporation, Appellant., 760 F.2d 1045 (9th Cir. 1985)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Cir. - Jurldine A. Donaldson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Paul v. Clark, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees., 819 F.2d 1551 (11th Cir. 1987)

Text:

Daniel J. Clinton, Hollywood, Cal., Phillip Schmidt, Hollywood, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant.

Kenneth E. Kulzick, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Before CHAMBERS and KENNEDY, Circuit Judges, and EAST,* District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

The trial court ordered this complaint dismissed for failure to comply with the provisions of Fed.R.Civ.P. 11.1 The plaintiff had filed a complaint claiming over $1,000,000 damages by reason of an alleged defamation communicated about him to police officials. The trial judge dismissed the complaint after it appeared the plaintiff's attorney had not pursued communication with his client and was unable to conduct any meaningful discussion of the case with opposing counsel.

There appear to be no legitimate reasons for the attorney's failing to discuss the case directly with his client. Before filing a civil action, the attorney has a duty to make an investigation to ascertain that it has at least some merit, and further to ascertain that the damages sought appear to bear a reasonable relation to injuries actually sustained. This is one of the purposes of F.R.Civ.P. 11. See, e. g., Miller v. Schweickart, 413 F.Supp. 1059, 1061-62 (S.D.N.Y.1976). The failure of plaintiff's attorney to discharge this duty, and the failure of the plaintiff to take affirmative steps to advise the attorney of such matters, rather than relying upon friends to convey hearsay information in a casual way, prejudiced defense counsel in their preparation of the case. A district court has the power to dismiss a complaint if it is frivolous or brought for some ulterior purpose. Brown v. District Unemployment Compensation Board, 411 F.Supp. 1001, 1001-02 (D.D.C.1975). Cf. also Ramsey v. United States, 448 F.Supp. 1264, 1275-76 (N.D.Ill.1978). We recognize that a motion to dismiss under rule 11 should not be frequently granted, cf. C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 1334 (1969 & Supp.1978). In this case, however, we cannot say that the district court misused its discretion. Cf. The Emerging Deterrence Orientation in the Imposition of Discovery Sanctions, 91 Harv.L.Rev. 1033, 1044-55 and cases cited therein (1978).

AFFIRMED.

* Honorable William G. East, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation

1 The relevant portions of rule 11 provide:

The signature of an attorney constitutes a certificate by him that he has read the pleading; that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief there is good ground to support it; and that it is not interposed for delay. If a pleading is not signed or is signed with intent to defeat the purpose of this rule, it may be stricken as sham and false and the action may proceed as though the pleading had not been served.

Sponsored Ads:




Activate your free trial now

Make your order

Need help? Contact us

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