Perrin v. Aluminum Co. of America, 13115.
| Decision Date | 23 May 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 13115.,13115. |
| Citation | 197 F.2d 254 |
| Parties | PERRIN et al. v. ALUMINUM CO. OF AMERICA et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Koerner, Young, McColloch & Dezendorf, James C. Dezendorf, Herbert H. Anderson, Portland, Or., John Yerkovich, Portland, Or., McLean & Klingberg, Longview, Wash., for appellants.
Smith, Buchanan, Ingersoll, Rodewald & Eckert, William H. Eckert, Frank L. Seamans, Pittsburgh, Pa., Hart, Spencer, McCulloch, Rockwood & Davies, Hugh L. Biggs, William W. Wyse, Portland, Or., Metzger, Blair, Gardner & Boldt, Hilton B. Gardner, Tacoma, Wash., for appellees.
Before HEALY, BONE, and ORR, Circuit Judges.
This action was commenced in a Washington state court to recover damages for injury allegedly done to plaintiffs' crops by fumes from a plant of the defendant Aluminum Company, a Pennsylvania corporation. One Thayer, a resident of Washington, was joined as a defendant. One of the plaintiffs was likewise a resident of that state. The cause was removed to the federal court on petition of the corporate defendant, buttressed by affidavit, asserting that Thayer was improperly and fraudulently joined. The plaintiffs moved for a remand, supporting their motion by an affidavit that Thayer was the manager in charge of the offending plant, hence had been properly joined. The motion was denied without formal findings.
Thereupon the defendants moved for a dismissal on the ground that the action was barred by a two-year statute of limitations of the State of Washington. Cf. 3 Beale, Conflict of Laws, 1620. This motion was granted and a judgment of dismissal entered. The plaintiffs appealed, asserting error both in the judgment of dismissal and in the denial of their motion to remand. We dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction because notice thereof had not been filed within the time prescribed by law. Judgment on mandate was thereafter entered by the district court.
The plaintiffs then moved in that court to vacate the judgment on mandate; to vacate the judgment of dismissal; to vacate the order of the district court denying remand; and for an order remanding the cause to the state court. The present appeal is from the denial of this motion.
The motion was made under Rule 60(b), Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. 28 U.S.C.A., permitting the district court to relieve a party from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for specified reasons, including under subdivision (6) "any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment." Appellants appear to have placed their reliance on subdivision (6). They have not shown, nor do they claim, that there has been any mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, fraud or misconduct such as might warrant the vacation of a judgment under other provisions of the rule. They acknowledge that their motion to vacate was addressed to the legal discretion of the district court and that its decision will not be disturbed except for abuse of discretion. See Independence Lead Mines Co. v. Kingsbury, 9 Cir., 175 F.2d 983, 988, and cases cite...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cummings v. Connell
...before announcement of the change. See Title v. United States, 263 F.2d 28, 31 (9th Cir.1959); see also Perrin v. Aluminum Co. of America, 197 F.2d 254, 255 (9th Cir.1952) ("Rule 60(b) was not intended to be resorted to as an alternative to review by CSEA, on the other hand, argues that bot......
-
Gencorp, Inc. v. Olin Corp.
...United States, 327 F.2d 431, 433 (7th Cir.1964); Kocher v. Dow Chem. Co., 132 F.3d 1225, 1229 (8th Cir.1997); Perrin v. Aluminum Co. of America, 197 F.2d 254, 255 (9th Cir.1952); Brown v. McCormick, 608 F.2d 410, 413 (10th Cir.1979); Parks v. U.S. Life & Credit Corp., 677 F.2d 838, 840-41 (......
-
Hodgson v. Applegate
...In the English chancery practice the decree recited the bill, answer and other pleadings, and the facts on which the decree was founded. In America, the decree was not so complete. Thus the error sufficient to support a bill of review in America had to be apparent on the face of the 'record......
-
Washington v. Penwell
...is no specified time limit for 60(b)(6), whether the motion was timely is a matter of the district court's discretion. Perrin v. Alcoa, 197 F.2d 254 (9th Cir.1952). In view of the extraordinary circumstances, there was no abuse of discretion in concluding that this motion was made within a ......