Buss v. Western Airlines, Inc.
| Citation | 738 F.2d 1053 |
| Decision Date | 26 July 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-5818,80-5818 |
| Parties | 35 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 1506, 34 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 34,562, 39 Fed.R.Serv.2d 916 Robert A. BUSS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WESTERN AIRLINES, INC., a corporation, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
Joan Celia Lavine, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant.
Darling, Hall, Rae, & Gute, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Before GOODWIN and FARRIS, Circuit Judges, and ORRICK *, District Judge.
Robert A. Buss ended nearly 35 years of employment with Western Airlines on October 17, 1975 under circumstances which led him, in January, 1977, to file an action for damages for violating 29 U.S.C. Sec. 621 et seq. (The Age Discrimination in Employment Act). In September, 1980, the district court dismissed the complaint because of plaintiff's failure to comply with court orders and failure to comply with local rules in a number of respects that delayed the preparation of the case for trial. Buss appeals, contending that the dismissal of the complaint without prejudice was an abuse of discretion in view of the running of the statute of limitations against his cause of action.
The voluminous file in this case reveals that a vast amount of lawyer time on both sides was expended in largely unnecessary paper shuffling as the parties battled over discovery and preliminary matters. Plaintiff's counsel assigned most of the difficulty to her heavy caseload of other litigation and to the novelty of the issues in this case. The trial court record reveals, however, that a good deal of the difficulty was caused by intransigence and total unconcern for the local rules of court.
It is not the purpose of this decision to assess fault. The trial judge, however, was not at fault. A judge with a caseload to manage must depend upon counsel meeting each other and the court halfway in moving a case toward trial. Time and again, over a period of more than three years, plaintiff's counsel refused to tender to the defense a realistic draft of language to be included in the pretrial order. Counsel was warned by the court upon several occasions that further delay and refusal to cooperate would result in the case being dismissed. The case is very similar to Von Poppenheim v. Portland Boxing & Wrestling Commission, 442 F.2d 1047 (9th Cir.1971), cert....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arnold v. Cnty. of El Dorado
...upon counsel [and/or the parties] meeting each other and the court halfway in moving a case toward trial." Buss v. Western Airlines, Inc., 738 F.2d 1053, 1054 (9th Cir. 1984). Thus, the court concludes, particularly in light of plaintiff's perjury, that no sanction short of dismissal would ......
-
Malone v. U.S. Postal Service
...a court order will result in dismissal can suffice to meet the "consideration of alternatives" requirement. See Buss v. Western Airlines, Inc., 738 F.2d 1053, 1054 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1192, 105 S.Ct. 968, 83 L.Ed.2d 972 (1985); Titus v. Mercedes Under the circumstances in......
-
Martinez v. Korea Shipping Corp., Ltd.
...... Barnett v. Sea Land Service, Inc., 875 F.2d 741, 745 (9th Cir.1989); Miller v. United States, 587 F.2d ......
-
Thompson v. Housing Authority of City of Los Angeles
...the sanction of dismissal for failure to comply with pretrial procedures mandated by local rules and court orders. Buss v. Western Airlines, Inc., 738 F.2d 1053 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 968, 83 L.Ed.2d 972 (1985); Chism v. National Heritage Life Insurance Co., ......