Bann v. Ingram Micro, Inc., 96-10722
| Decision Date | 28 March 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-10722,96-10722 |
| Citation | 108 F.3d 625 |
| Parties | , 6 A.D. Cases 930, 9 NDLR P 268 Ronald D. BANN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INGRAM MICRO, INC., Defendant-Appellee. Summary Calendar. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Gary Nathan Schepps, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Dan C. Dargene, Lewis W. Smith, IV, Winstead, Sechrist & Minick, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
Before JONES, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff-Appellant Ronald D. Bann ("Bann") appeals the district court's order dismissing his cause of action against Defendant-Appellee Ingram Micro, Inc. ("Ingram") pursuant to F ED.R.CIV.P. 16(f). Finding that the district court abused its discretion, we reverse.
Bann filed this action against Ingram on December 27, 1995 alleging unlawful discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On April 24, 1996, 119 days after the filing of the complaint, Bann effected service on Ingram. On April 26, 1996 the district court entered an order, stating:
It appears to the court that more than 120 days have elapsed since the filing of plaintiff's complaint and that service on the defendant in this case has not yet been accomplished. Unless plaintiff shows cause in writing by May 10, 1996 why this case should be retained on the docket, it will be dismissed without further notice. See Local Rule of Practice 3.1(g) and Rule 4(m), Fed.R.Civ.P. SO ORDERED.
On May 13, 1996, because Bann had not responded to the show cause order, 1 the district court entered a second order stating:
Pursuant to this court's order to show cause issued April 26, 1996, plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. See Rule 16(f), Fed.R.Civ.P. SO ORDERED.
On May 16, 1996, Bann filed a Return of Service evidencing that Ingram had been served on April 24, 1996. On May 24, 1996 Bann moved to reinstate the case. On June 11, 1996, while the motion to reinstate was pending, Bann filed a notice of appeal. The district court denied the motion to reinstate the case without discussion on June 28, 1996.
Bann's notice of appeal, filed after the entry of the judgment but before the disposition of his motion to reinstate the case, was ineffective to appeal from the judgment until the entry of the order disposing of that motion. FED.R.APP.P. 4(a)(4). Appellate review of the order denying reinstatement is precluded because Bann failed to amend the previously filed notice of appeal. Id. This court's review is therefore limited to the district court's May 13, 1996 Order of dismissal.
If service of the summons and complaint is not made upon a defendant within 120 days after the filing of the complaint, the court shall dismiss the action without prejudice or direct that service be effected within a specified time, provided that if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court shall extend the time for service for an appropriate period. FED.R.CIV.P. 4(m); Local Rule of Practice, Northern District of Texas, 3.1(g). The show cause order warned that dismissal would result if Bann failed to timely show cause why Ingram had not been served, specifically referencing the Local Rule and the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure that provide for dismissal without prejudice. The question before this court is whether the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the case with prejudice. Securities & Exchange Commission v. First Houston Capital Resources Fund, Inc., 979 F.2d 380, 381-382 (5th Cir.1992).
The dismissal with prejudice can never be based on Rule 4(m)'s 120 day requirement. Ingram argues that it was within the district court's discretion to impose the dismissal with prejudice based on Rule 16(f). That Rule provides:
(f) Sanctions. If a party or party's attorney fails to obey a scheduling or pretrial order, or if no appearance is made on behalf of a party at a scheduling or pretrial conference ... the judge ... may make such orders with regard thereto as are just and among others [...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zermeno v. Mcdonnell Douglas Corp.
...or extend time for service. Id. A dismissal with prejudice cannot be based on Rule 4(m)'s 120-day requirement. Bann v. Ingram Micro, Inc., 108 F.3d 625, 626 (5th Cir. 1997). The plaintiff bears the burden of showing good cause. Hickman v. U.G. Lively, 897 F.Supp. 955, 959 (S.D.Tex. 1995) (c......
-
Ross v. Marshall
...court addresses all post-judgment motions specified by the rule, it has not entirely finished with a case."); Bann v. Ingram Micro, Inc., 108 F.3d 625, 626 (5th Cir.1997) ("Bann's notice of appeal, filed after the entry of the judgment but before the disposition of his motion to reinstate t......
-
Simmons v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co.
...until the district court has disposed of the last post-judgment motion. FED. R.APP. P. 4(a)(4)(B); see, e.g., Bann v. Ingram Micro, Inc., 108 F.3d 625, 626 (5th Cir.1997) ("[The plaintiff's] notice of appeal, filed after the entry of the judgment but before the disposition of his motion to ......
-
Baker v. American Airlines, Inc.
...Court must consider a lesser form of sanction only when dismissal, as opposed to costs, is the sanction. Compare Bann v. Ingram Micro, Inc., 108 F.3d 625, 627 (5th Cir.1997) (imposing the requirement for dismissal with prejudice) with O'Neill, 74 F.3d at 96 (imposing no requirements for cos......