stating that a district court's denial of a motion for enlargement of time under Rule 6(b) is reviewed for abuse of discretion
How later courts described this case
- stating that a district court's denial of a motion for enlargement of time under Rule 6(b) is reviewed for abuse of discretion
- holding class action must be “superior to, 10 and not just as good as, other available methods for handling the controversy”
- holding a local rule valid where its “requirements . . . do not conflict with any of the provisions of Rule 38”
- “[T]he failure of any one of Rule 23’s requirements 25 destroys the alleged class action.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ALFRED T. GOODWIN, Circuit Judge
(specially concurring):
I concur in the majority opinion insofar as it affirms the dismissal of the action. I do so because I am satisfied that the proof put on by the plaintiff would not have sustained a verdict if there had been a jury.
I do not approve the district court’s refusal to permit the plaintiff to rehabilitate its demand for a jury trial in order to comply with local rules. While I agree with the district court that the conduct of some of the plaintiff’s earlier lawyers was hardly a model of efficiency and diligence, it is risky business to punish inept lawyers by denying their client a trial by jury. I would have resolved the doubts about compliance with the local rules in favor of allowing the party to cure the deficiency. On the whole record in this case, however, any error or abuse of discretion with reference to the plaintiff’s Seventh-Amendment rights was harmless.