Fournier v. Textron, Inc.
| Decision Date | 15 November 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-3409,85-3409 |
| Citation | 776 F.2d 532 |
| Parties | Daniel FOURNIER and Barbara Fournier, his wife, and individually, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TEXTRON, INC., individually, and d/b/a Bell Helicopter Textron, Division of Textron, Inc., et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Richard A. Thalheim, Jr., Thibodaux, La., for plaintiffs-appellants.
R.K. Christovich, Jr., New Orleans, La., for Allison Gas & Detroit.
McGlinchey, Stafford, Mintz & Cellini, Ken Laborde, New Orleans, La., for Petroleum Hel.
Plauche & Maselli, Andrew L. Plauche, Jr., New Orleans, La., for Sundstrand Corp.
Phelps, Dunbar, Marks, Claverie & Sims, Howard Daigle, Jr., for Airwork Corp.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana; Henry A. Mentz, Jr., District Judge, Presiding.
Before CLARK, Chief Judge, JERRE S. WILLIAMS and PATRICK E. HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiffs appeal the dismissal for want of prosecution of their diversity suit for personal injuries suffered in the crash of a helicopter in the Gulf of Mexico. Because plaintiffs have no legitimate explanation for a 32-month delay in causing process to be issued, and this delay on the facts of this case is both prejudicial and unfair to defendants, we affirm.
Daniel and Barbara Fournier sued Petroleum Helicopter, Inc. on June 17, 1982 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana for personal injuries and other damages allegedly suffered when a PHI helicopter made an emergency landing in the Gulf of Mexico in October, 1981. Pointing to a claimed diversity of citizenship, plaintiffs requested trial by jury. Because the sole basis of jurisdiction was maritime, the jury demand was properly stricken. PHI then filed third-party complaints against Sundstrand Corporation, the manufacturer of the helicopter's fuel pump, and Airwork Corporation, who repaired the pump before the accident. PHI filed a separate suit against Sundstrand and Airwork for damages sustained by the helicopter. This suit was later consolidated with the Fournier suit and the cases were set for a bench trial on August 30, 1984. After extensive discovery, PHI, with leave of court, added Allison Gas Turbine, the manufacturer of the engine, as a third-party defendant, and the case was rescheduled for trial in early 1985. Shortly before the trial, plaintiffs disclosed for the first time that in October 1982 they had filed, but withheld process in, a suit for damages seeking recovery from Airwork, Allison, Sundstrand and Bell Helicopter Textron. PHI, a non-diverse party, was not named as a defendant. This diversity suit, aptly termed the "mystery" suit by appellees, was consolidated with the admiralty suit and then dismissed by the district court for want of prosecution. The Fourniers appeal the dismissal of the mystery suit.
The Fourniers argue that their suit was filed within the period of limitations and before the amendment of Rule 4 requiring good cause for failure to issue process within 120 days of suit. The argument continues that defendants suffered no prejudice by their 32-month delay in issuing process, and that the dismissal deprives them of their constitutional right to trial by jury.
Appellees reply that the court was justified in its dismissal because they were prejudiced and alternatively as a sanction for unexplained delay. They also argue that the Fourniers are attempting to assert jurisdiction for a direct claim against a third-party defendant whose citizenship is non-diverse; relatedly, the plaintiffs are attempting to manufacture jurisdiction.
We have emphasized the necessity for prompt service of process and have sustained district courts insisting through dismissal upon that practice under an abuse of discretion standard of review. Porter v. Beaumont Enterprise & Journal, 743 F.2d 269, 271 (5th Cir.1984). Indeed, the amendment of Rule 4 by the addition of subsection (j) reflects this strong judicial policy. See Veazey v. Young's Yacht Sale and Service, Inc., 644 F.2d 475 (5th Cir.1981). In...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCabe v. Macaulay
... ... DaimlerChrysler Corp., 409 F.3d 984, 990 (8th Cir.2005) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)). A fact is material when it is a fact ... ...
-
In re Silica Products Liability Litigation
...cases would require.") (citing Landry v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n Int'l AFL-CIO, 901 F.2d 404, 436 (5th Cir.1990); Fournier v. Textron, Inc., 776 F.2d 532, 534 (5th Cir.1985) (noting district court's authority to manage and develop complex litigation discovery)). In Acuna, the Fifth Circuit af......
-
Del Raine v. Carlson
...it, as evidenced by failing to serve the defendant within a reasonable time after filing the complaint. See Fournier v. Textron, Inc., 776 F.2d 532 (5th Cir.1985); Messenger v. United States, 231 F.2d 328, 330-31 (2d Cir.1956). In 1983 Rule 4(j) was added to the Federal Rules of Civil Proce......
-
Sealed Appellant v. Sealed Appellee
...dismissals with prejudice, we found at least one of three aggravating factors.") (emphasis added). 5. See also Fournier v. Textron, Inc., 776 F.2d 532, 534 (5th Cir.1985) (citing Veazey and holding that failure to serve within limitations period creates actual prejudice and justifies dismis......