Kasey v. Molybdenum Corporation of America, 25807.
| Decision Date | 11 December 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 25807.,25807. |
| Citation | 467 F.2d 1284 |
| Parties | J. Bryant KASEY and MaryAnn Kasey, Appellants, v. MOLYBDENUM CORPORATION OF AMERICA, a corporation, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
J. Bryant Kasey and MaryAnn Kasey, in pro. per.
Everette B. Laybourne (argued), Dennis Keeley, of MacDonald, Halsted & Laybourne, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before MERRILL, KOELSCH and KILKENNY, Circuit Judges.
Certiorari Denied December 11, 1972. See 93 S.Ct. 571.
In 1960, J. Bryant Kasey and MaryAnn Kasey, his wife (hereinafter appellants), commenced an action in the District Court to recover certain mining properties which they had sold and conveyed in 1951 to appellee Molybdenum Corporation; in addition, they sought an accounting and damages. The District Court, concluding that the claim for recovery of the property1 was barred by limitations California Code of Civil Procedure § 318, entered judgment against appellants on that claim, pursuant to Rule 54, F.R.Civ.P. This court affirmed. Kasey v. Molybdenum Corp., 336 F.2d 560 (9th Cir. 1964).2
During the course of proceedings in the District Court on the remaining claims, appellants moved for a change of venue. This motion was denied. Appellants' purported appeal from that order was dismissed and, treated as a petition for a writ of mandamus, was denied. Kasey v. Molybdenum Corp., 408 F.2d 16 (9th Cir. 1969). When the matter then went back, the District Court, in an attempt to clarify the basis for the remaining claim and to ascertain what factual issues would be presented for trial and determination, made an order on its own motion in the nature of an order to show cause, directing appellants to appear and particularize. Appellants thereupon filed an extensive memorandum which, in essence, consisted solely of a reiteration of their claim for recovery of the property. At the hearing, appellants affirmatively declined to continue on the accounting and related matters and persistently urged that the action to recover the property continue; they further requested leave to amend their complaint accordingly. The court denied appellants' motion, on the ground that the proposed amended complaint did not raise any new issues, and granted judgment against them.
Succinctly stated, the issue on this appeal is whether the District Court erred in denying appellants leave to amend and incidentally dismissing their action. It is well settled, of course, that amendments to pleadings should be freely allowed when the interests of justice would be served. Rule 15, F.R.Civ.P. However, inherent in this rule is the qualification that amendments should not be allowed merely to permit a restatement of the same facts in different language or the reassertion of a claim previously determined. Appellants' proposed amendment is within this qualification. Their right to question the sale contract and accompanying conveyance...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wakeen v. Hoffman House, Inc.
...merely restates the same facts using different language, or reasserts a claim previously determined. Kasey v. Molybdenum Corporation of America, 467 F.2d 1284, 1285 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1063, 93 S.Ct. 571, 34 L.Ed.2d 516 The trial court dismissed Wakeen's lunch break discrimin......
-
James v. KID Broadcasting Corp.
...have allowed plaintiffs to amend their complaints to allege the fulfillment of exhaustion requirements. See Kasey v. Molybdenum Corp. of America, 467 F.2d 1284 (9th Cir.1972); Rohler v. TRW, Inc., 576 F.2d 1260 (7th Cir.1978). The Court will therefore grant plaintiff's motion to amend, and ......
-
Adams v. City of Indianapolis
...restates the same facts using different language, or reasserts a claim previously determined." Id., citing Kasey v. Molybdenum Corporation of America, 467 F.2d 1284, 1285 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1063, 93 S.Ct. 571, 34 L.Ed.2d 516 (1972). The Court offered Plaintiffs ample opportu......
-
Kasey v. Commissioner, Docket No. 2635-70
...336 F. 2d 560 (9th Cir. 1964); Kasey v. Molybdenum Corporation of America, 408 F. 2d 16 (9th Cir. 1969); Kasey v. Molybdenum Corporation of America, 467 F. 2d 1284 (9th Cir. 1972). That same 1951 agreement has been the subject of prior litigation in this Court. See J. Bryant Kasey, Dec. 24,......