Pharo v. Smith
| Decision Date | 18 September 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-1273,77-1273 |
| Parties | Edmond G. PHARO et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. W. L. SMITH et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
(Opinion July 9, 1980, 621 F.2d 656)
Before SIMPSON, TJOFLAT and HILL, Circuit Judges.
In our prior opinion, 5th Cir., 621 F.2d 656, we concluded that the district court dismissed without prejudice plaintiffs' state law causes of action when it granted defendant Deltec International, Ltd. summary judgment on the federal claims. In their petition for rehearing, plaintiffs contend, for the first time in these proceedings, that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing their pendent state law claims because those claims, or at least the one brought under the Alabama Fraudulent Conveyance Act, § 8-9-9, Code of Ala. (1975), though disposed of without prejudice, are now barred by the Alabama statute of limitations. We cannot determine from the record before us whether this issue was presented to the district court at the time Deltec's motion for summary judgment was heard, and we are unable to ascertain whether, as plaintiffs contend, the dismissal of their state law claims will operate with prejudice.
That a plaintiff's state law claims will be time-barred if dismissed is certainly a factor, if not a determinative factor, a district court should consider in deciding whether to maintain jurisdiction over pendent state claims once the federal claims have been resolved. O'Brien v. Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Co., 593 F.2d 54 (7th Cir. 1979) . Though plaintiffs have delayed in calling this statute of limitations problem to the court's attention, we think the problem deserves consideration; the appropriate forum to consider it is the district court. See In re Carter, 618 F.2d 1093, 1104-05 (5th Cir. 1980).
The petition for rehearing is, therefore, granted in part, and the cause is remanded to the district court for reconsideration of its order...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robles v. Humana Hosp. Cartersville
...South, N.A., 885 F.2d 723, 732 (11th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 905, 110 S.Ct. 1924, 109 L.Ed.2d 287 (1990); Pharo v. Smith, 625 F.2d 1226, 1227 (5th Cir.1980). 1. Breach of Contract. Plaintiff alleges that HHC's bylaws are a contract per se and that the Hospital breached its contrac......
-
Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Voigt
...no genuine issue of material fact exists. Pharo v. Smith, 621 F.2d 656, 664 (5th Cir.1980), remanded on reh'g on other grounds, 625 F.2d 1226 (5th Cir.1980). As recognized by the Pharo court, however, only inferences that follow reasonably from the evidence need be considered. Id. Relativel......
-
In re Catanella and EF Hutton and Co.
...644 F.2d 779, 785 (8th Cir.1981); Pharo v. Smith, 621 F.2d 656, 667 (5th Cir.), aff'd in part, remanded in part on other grounds, 625 F.2d 1226 (5th Cir.1980). Given the more restrictive view espoused in Collins, it is not clear whether the Third Circuit would follow these other courts. How......
-
Moore-McCormack Lines v. INTERN. TERMINAL OPERATING
...circumstances", justifying federal retention. Garner v. Pearson, 732 F.2d 850, 854 (11th Cir.1984), quoting, Pharo v. Smith, 625 F.2d 1226, 1227 (5th Cir.1980); Meyerhofer v. Empire Fire & Marine Ins. Co., supra, at Here, were Mormac relegated to the state courts, a number of the claims ari......
-
Let's be frank: the future direction of controlling person liability remains uncertain.
...at 396-97 (providing Eleventh Circuit's standard for controlling person liability). (58.) 621 F.2d 656, 670 (5th Cir.), rev'd in part, 625 F.2d 1226 (5th Cir. (59.) 636 F.2d 945, 958 (5th Cir. 1981); see Brown, 84 F.3d at 396 (describing combination of factors provided in Pharo and G.A. Tho......