Richardson v. United States

Decision Date09 September 1964
Docket NumberNo. 19048.,19048.
PartiesW. E. RICHARDSON, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America and Don's Chemical Company, Inc., Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

James K. Tallman, Anchorage, Alaska, for appellant.

Warren C. Colver, U. S. Atty., Russel Holland, Asst. U. S. Atty., Anchorage, Alaska, for appellee United States.

James J. Delaney, Jr., Delaney, Wiles & Moore, Anchorage, Alaska, for appellee Don's Chemical Co. Inc.

Before MADDEN, Judge, Court of Claims, and MERRILL and DUNIWAY, Circuit Judges.

DUNIWAY, Circuit Judge.

Richardson appeals, by a single notice of appeal, from an order dismissing his complaint as to the defendant United States of America, and from a separate, and later, order dismissing his complaint as to the defendant Don's Chemical Company, Inc. (Don's). We have reluctantly concluded that the appeal must be dismissed, as to both orders.

The complaint is in two counts. The first is against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671 and 2674). It alleges that the plaintiff, a citizen and resident of Alaska, was employed by the United States at Anchorage as a cartographer draftsman in the Bureau of Land Management. It further alleges that the United States negligently failed to maintain a safe place for Richardson to work by permitting carbon tetrachloride and other dangerous and toxic substances to be released in the air around the drafting tables where he worked, causing him injury.

The second count is against Don's. It repeats the allegations of the first count, alleges that Don's is an Alaska corporation, that the amount in controversy is more than $10,000, and that the claim against Don's arises "by virtue of the tort claim involving the United States." It alleges that Don's negligently furnished to the Bureau of Land Management carbon tetrachloride and chlorothene in containers that were "improperly marked, as required sic by the regulations of the Federal Food and Drug Administration." It also alleges that the containers did not indicate the dangerous nature of the substances that they contained and did not warn users of the necessity of avoiding contact with these substances either through breathing or through the skin.

Don's answered, admitting the allegations that plaintiff was a citizen and resident of Alaska and that Don's is an Alaska corporation, but denying all other allegations. The United States filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that no claim was stated against it under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

The order of dismissal granted in response to the motion of the United States reads:

"IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the plaintiff\'s complaint be dismissed as to the defendant, United States of America."

On its face, this is not an appealable order. It dismisses the complaint, not the action. Under rule 15(a), F.R.Civ.P., no "responsive pleading" having been filed, Richardson would have a right to amend. A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is not a "responsive pleading." (Breier v. Northern California Bowling Proprietors' Association, 9 Cir., 1963, 316 F.2d 787.) Ordinarily, an order granting such a motion to dismiss the complaint is not appealable. (Turnbull v. Cyr, 9 Cir., 1950, 184 F.2d 117; Williams v. Peters, 9 Cir., 1956, 233 F.2d 618; Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp. v. City of Seattle, 9 Cir., 1960, 281 F.2d 896; Javor v. Brown, 9 Cir., 1961, 295 F.2d 60; Marshall v. Sawyer, 9 Cir., 1962, 301 F.2d 639.)

Moreover, the order does not dispose of the action. The second count, against Don's, was not affected. It remained pending and at issue. In such a case, unless the court makes the determination provided for in rule 54(b), F.R. Civ.P., its order dismissing, as to only one party, even though it dismisses the action (as distinguished from the complaint), is not...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Newport Air Park, Inc. v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island
    • November 29, 1968
    ...S.S. Co. v. United States, 294 F.2d 179 (9th Cir. 1961); Drake v. Treadwell Const. Co., 299 F.2d 789 (3rd Cir. 1962); Richardson v. United States, 336 F.2d 265, 266 n. 1 (dicta) (9th Cir. 1964); Hill Lines, Inc. v. Pittsburg Plate Glass Co., 222 F.2d 854 (10th Cir. 1955).13 Second, all of t......
  • DIA Brewing Co. v. MCE-DIA, LLC
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • February 6, 2020
    ...; B.C. Inv. Co. v. Throm , 650 P.2d 1333, 1335 (Colo. App. 1982). Other cases involve clear preemption, e.g. , Richardson v. United States , 336 F.2d 265, 266 n.1 (9th Cir. 1964) ; claims that are "so patently frivolous that they cannot be saved," Rubins v. Plummer , 813 P.2d 778, 779 (Colo......
  • United States v. Woodbury
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • March 11, 1966
    ...as to Woodbury was not appealable, no determination and direction having been made under Rule 54(b), F.R. Civ.P. (Richardson v. United States, 9 Cir., 1964, 336 F.2d 265.) The only defense asserted by Woodbury in No. 19,767 that would not also have been available to him in No. 19,768 was th......
  • In re Noeller
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • March 21, 2018
    ...matters are pending in the district court is premature. United States v. Davis, 924 F.2d 501, 504 (3rd Cir.1991); Richardson v. United States, 336 F.2d 265 (9th Cir. 1964); Haldane v. Chagno, 345 F.2d 601, 602 (9th Cir.1965). In such cases the notice is extended until after the disposition ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT