Locascio v. Teletype Corp., 82-1354
| Decision Date | 02 December 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 82-1354,82-1354 |
| Parties | 34 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 1671, 30 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 33,202 Carl LOCASCIO, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TELETYPE CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Ernest T. Rossiello, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs-appellants.
Walter P. Loomis, Jr., Chicago, Ill., for defendant-appellee.
Before WOOD and POSNER, Circuit Judges, and DUMBAULD, Senior District Judge. *
This case was brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Title 29 U.S.C. Sec. 621 et seq., by 35 former employees of Teletype Corporation in response to their lay-offs in July of 1975. It is in this court on appeal from an involuntary dismissal for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The plaintiffs-appellants, Carl Locascio, et al., request that the dismissal be vacated and the case be remanded to the district court for trial because they contend that the trial judge abused her discretion in granting the motion to dismiss. We reject plaintiffs' contention and affirm the dismissal.
It is unclear from the record at what point in the progress of this lawsuit that the delays leading directly to its dismissal actually began. While it appears that the critical time period fell between February and June of 1981, the lawsuit was already almost four years old at that time, and had encountered delays attributable to both parties and to the court prior to 1981. The most significant of those for which the plaintiffs were responsible was a three-month failure to secure new counsel when plaintiffs' first attorney withdrew ten days after filing the lawsuit on July 17, 1977. 1 There was no other single instance of serious procrastination until 1981, but it cannot be said that plaintiffs facilitated expeditious movement toward trial.
In early 1981, plaintiffs' trial attorney suggested to plaintiffs that they consider arbitration instead of jury trial. Plaintiffs met this suggestion with disapproval manifested in letters of complaint to the trial judge. A progressive deterioration in the attorney/client relationship, evidenced in part by these communications, eventually resulted in trial counsel's withdrawal on April 27, 1981. At that time, and in an in-chambers conference on April 30, plaintiffs indicated to the judge their dissatisfaction with their remaining attorney. Judge Getzendanner advised them that the June 1 trial date could be delayed for no more than one week, until June 8, and that no further delays would be granted. At that time she also set a May 14 status conference at which plaintiffs were to appear with new counsel. Plaintiffs not only failed to secure new trial counsel during that two-week period, but also filed a complaint against their remaining counsel before the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Illinois Supreme Court, resulting in counsel's motion to withdraw from the case. It was at this point that defendants filed a motion for involuntary dismissal. Subsequent events did little to salvage the situation: plaintiffs gave no indication of further efforts to secure trial counsel or that they wished to proceed pro se; and finally, the attorney who serendipitously stepped in at the twelfth hour to attempt to save plaintiffs from certain dismissal failed to appear in time for his own motion call to set a new trial date.
It is within the discretion of the trial court to dismiss for failure to prosecute, Link v. Wabash, 370 U.S. 626, 629-31, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 1388-1389, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962), and we will not disturb such a ruling in the absence of abuse of discretion. Jafree v. Scott, 590 F.2d 209, 212 (7th Cir.1978). While there are no clear-cut rules governing the exercise of discretion on a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute, this circuit has adhered to a standard which looks to the question of arbitrariness on the part of the trial court in determining whether there is an abuse of discretion warranting reversal. Link. In general we will not set...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Resolution Trust Corp. v. S & K CHEVROLET
-
Schilling v. Walworth County Park & Planning Com'n
...from our recent cases of Stevens v. Greyhound Lines, 710 F.2d 1224, 1229-1230 & n. 9 (7th Cir.1983), and Locascio v. Teletype Corp., 694 F.2d 497, 498-499 (7th Cir.1982), certiorari denied, 461 U.S. 906, 103 S.Ct. 1876, 76 L.Ed.2d 808 (1983), where, in each case, the plaintiffs alienated th......
-
Sisk v. U.S.
...of the issue under consideration." Stevens v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 710 F.2d 1224, 1229 (7th Cir.1983), quoting Locascio v. Teletype Corp., 694 F.2d 497, 499 (7th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 906, 103 S.Ct. 1876, 76 L.Ed.2d 808 (1983). However, this is not to say that a district court......
-
In re Olympia Brewing Co. Securities Litigation
...41(b) is within the trial court's discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent abuse of discretion. Locascio v. Teletype Corporation, 694 F.2d 497, 499 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 906, 103 S.Ct. 1876, 76 L.Ed.2d 808 (1983) (courts of appeals will "not set aside a ... di......