Parker v. Broadcast Music, Inc., 331
| Decision Date | 27 April 1961 |
| Docket Number | Docket 26782.,No. 331,331 |
| Citation | 289 F.2d 313 |
| Parties | Gloria PARKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BROADCAST MUSIC, INC., Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Archibald Palmer, New York City, for plaintiff-appellant.
Rosenman, Colin, Kaye, Petschek & Freund, New York City (Lawrence R. Eno, Milton Adler, Harold S. Levy, New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellee.
Before WATERMAN, MOORE and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
This copyright infringement action was commenced on July 23, 1957. On September 5, 1957 issue was joined. In the fall of that year defendant started to take the deposition of plaintiff, and in the course of that deposition proceeding plaintiff refused to answer certain questions and refused to produce certain requested documents. Defendant then moved to compel plaintiff to answer the unanswered questions and to compel the production of the desired documents. When this motion was heard in November 1957, plaintiff's then attorney, in plaintiff's presence, consented to part of the motion and agreed that plaintiff would produce some of the requested documents and would answer some of the questions. In January 1958 the district judge issued his order directing the plaintiff to answer the questions counsel had agreed would be answered and also additional ones. There was no progress after this date, and, finally, in October 1959, the case was called on the Review Calendar under General Rule 21 of the Southern District's Rules. Counsel were present. On October 14 Chief Judge Ryan directed that the action would be dismissed without further notice for failure to prosecute it unless plaintiff filed a note of issue for trial or took other action to determine the issues within six months of that date.
On April 14, 1960, the day this six months' period expired, plaintiff's attorney notified defendant's attorneys that he had withdrawn from the case and that he had advised plaintiff to secure other counsel. Thereupon an order issued, dated April 20, 1960, by which the dismissal was stayed and plaintiff was given an additional 30 days in which to secure other counsel or otherwise prepare to proceed with her case.
Nothing was done during the 30 day extension period and the action was dismissed on May 24, 1960. On December 13, 1960 plaintiff, represented by new counsel, her present counsel, moved to vacate the dismissal order of May 24, 1960. This motion was denied by Chief Judge Ryan on December 30, 1960. A motion made January 4, 1961 to vacate the order of December 30, 1960 was likewise denied by his order of January 24, 1961. From the orders denying these two motions plaintiff appeals.
It is conceded that the extent of our review is limited to an inquiry into whether...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bryant, Inc. v. Walters
...R. Company, 489 F.2d 632 (8th C.A.Ark.1974); Wilkin v. Sunbeam Corp., 466 F.2d 714 (10th C.A.Kan.1972); Parker v. Broadcast Music, Inc., 289 F.2d 313 (2nd C.A.N.Y.1961). The record reveals the circuit judge conducted a thorough hearing and acted within his discretion in declining to set asi......
-
Kozlowski v. Coughlin, 634
...of deliberate flexibility in permitting amendments of the consent decree was not an abuse of discretion. See Parker v. Broadcast Music, Inc., 289 F.2d 313, 314 (2d Cir.1961). Accordingly, I MINER, Circuit Judge, dissenting: There can be no doubt that a correctional facility must be safe, se......
-
Seneca Nation of Indians v. New York
...left to the "sound discretion" of the district court. In re Lawrence, 293 F.3d 615, 623 (2d Cir. 2002) (citing Parker v. Broad. Music, Inc., 289 F.2d 313, 314 (2d Cir. 1961) ). The proponent of a Rule 60 (b) motion bears the burden of proof. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 247 F.3d at 391. That pa......
-
Smith v. Muccino, 3:98CV324(JBA).
...of such a motion will not be disturbed upon appeal unless there has been a clear abuse of the judicial power." Parker v. Broadcast Music, Inc., 289 F.2d 313 (2d Cir.1961); accord Altman v. Connally, 456 F.2d 1114, 1116 (2d Cir.1972). While "the determination is at bottom an equitable one, t......