Fendler v. Westgate-California Corp., WESTGATE-CALIFORNIA
| Decision Date | 31 December 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 73--2816,WESTGATE-CALIFORNIA,73--2816 |
| Citation | 527 F.2d 1168 |
| Parties | Robert H. FENDLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.CORPORATION et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Before CHAMBERS and KOELSCH, Circuit Judges, and JAMESON, * District Judge.
Fendler appeals from an order of the district court dismissing his third amended complaint with prejudice and denying his motion for certification of the suit as a class action. We affirm.
Fendler is an attorney who on May 20, 1968, purchased 20 shares of Class A common stock of Westgate-California Corporation. In March, 1972, Fendler, through his law partner, filed his original complaint against forty-six named defendants (more were added in later complaints). The complaint seemed to be in the nature of a derivative action and seemed to allege injury to the Westgate-California Corporation as a result of transactions with some of the other defendants. Defendants filed motions for more definite statement and for the posting of a cost bond with respect to the corporate derivative claims. These motions were granted.
Fendler then filed his first amended complaint which was quickly followed by a second amended complaint. The defendants filed motions to dismiss, strike and for more definite statement. The court, after lengthy argument, entered a detailed order dismissing the action as to some defendants and striking various allegations. The order contained leave to file a third amended complaint, provided the complaint was limited to certain expressly stated claims. The order indicated that the court would grant no further leave to amend.
Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint which did not meet the specifications set out by they court in its order. The defendants again filed motions to dismiss, strike, and for more definite statement. The court dismissed the third amended complaint with prejudice and at the same time denied Fendler's motion to maintain the suit as a class action.
Federal Rule 41(b) (F.R.Cir.P. 41(b)) allows the court to dismiss an action for failure of the plaintiff to obey an order of the court. Further, our court has recognized an inherent power of the trial court to dismiss in order to protect the integrity of its orders. O'Brien v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doe v. Wolf, Case No.: 19-cv-2119-DMS (AGS)
...their counsel must have sufficient "zeal and competence" to protect the interests of the rest of the class. Fendler v. Westgate-Cal. Corp. , 527 F.2d 1168, 1170 (9th Cir. 1975). Petitioners satisfy Rule 23(a)(4)'s adequacy requirement. Petitioners have shown they do not have any conflicts o......
-
M. S. v. Wermers
...Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-33, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962), and to protect the integrity of its orders, Fendler v. Westgate-California Corp., 527 F.2d 1168, 1170 (9th Cir. 1975). See generally 15 A.L.R.Fed. 407 (1973). The power to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) is not unlimited, howe......
-
Butler v. Circulus, Inc.
...de Empleados del Instituto de Cultura Puertorriquena v. Morales, 538 F.2d 915, 916(1) (1st Cir. 1976); Fendler v. Westgate California Corp., 527 F.2d 1168, 1170(2) (9th Cir. 1975); 15 A.L.R.Fed. 407, 420-22, § 6. The decision to dismiss for failure to make a pleading more definite under Rul......
-
Wrighten v. Metropolitan Hospitals, Inc.
...court correctly considers the competence of counsel when deciding to grant or deny class certification. Fendler v. Westgate-California Corp., 527 F.2d 1168, 1170 (9th Cir.1975). See also, Al-Jundi v. Rockefeller, 88 F.R.D. 244, 248 (W.D.N.Y.1980); Wofford v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 78 F.R.D. ......