Murray Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc.

Court Case Details
Court Case Opinion

667 F.2d 33

Murray STEIN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
REYNOLDS SECURITIES, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 81-5093.

United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.

Feb. 4, 1982.
As corrected June 28, 1982.

Ralph Paul Douglas, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., for plaintiff-appellant.

Smathers & Thompson, James L. Armstrong, III, Miami, Fla., for defendant-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Before THORNBERRY*, FAY and HATCHETT, Circuit Judges.

HATCHETT, Circuit Judge:


This appeal challenges the district court's granting of summary judgment in favor of Reynolds Securities, Inc., which dismissed Murray Stein's federal claims and pendant state action. We affirm the dismissal of Stein's federal counts and remand Stein's pendant state action for further consideration by the district court.1


In 1976, Murray Stein filed a complaint against Reynolds Securities, Inc., alleging five federal claims and one pendant state claim. In 1979, the district court dismissed Stein's suit for failure to prosecute, and Stein filed a new complaint. The district court subsequently granted summary judgment in favor of Reynolds. The district court found that the federal claims were barred by the statute of limitations. Because all federal claims were dismissed, the district court dismissed the pendant state claim without prejudice to the plaintiff's right to pursue his claim in state court. The state period of limitations, however, had run during pendency of this action.


We must determine whether Stein's first filing, which was subsequently dismissed for failure to prosecute, tolled the federal period of limitations. We must also determine whether a federal court may retain jurisdiction over a pendant state action which has been barred by the state period of limitations even though all federal claims have been dismissed.


Stein contends that the period of limitations was tolled by the filing of his initial suit in 1976, despite the fact that the district court subsequently dismissed this action for failure to prosecute. We disagree. The fact that dismissal of an earlier suit was without prejudice does not authorize a subsequent suit brought outside of the otherwise binding period of limitations. See Goff v. United States, 659 F.2d 560 (5th Cir. 1981). This former Fifth Circuit opinion which was decided on October 15, 1981, by Unit A of that Court, is not binding precedent for the Eleventh Circuit. The discussion of this issue in Goff is persuasive however, and we choose to follow that reasoning. Had the decision been made by a non-unit panel of the Former Fifth, the full en banc court of the Former Fifth, or Unit B panel of the Former Fifth Circuit, we would regard the decision as binding precedent which we sould have to follow absent Eleventh Circuit en banc consideration. Unit A en banc decisions and Unit A panel decisions after October 1, 1981, are only persuasive, however, not binding precedent in the Eleventh Circuit. We therefore find that Stein's federal claims were barred by the period of limitations.


Stein next contends that the dismissal of all federal claims does not destroy pendant jurisdiction of state claims where the state claim would be barred in state court because of the running of the period of limitations. The Fifth Circuit has addressed this question and held: "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 pendant state claims ...." Henson v. Columbus Bank and Trust Co., 651 F.2d 320, 325 (5th Cir. 1981), quoting Pharo v. Smith, 625 F.2d 1226, 1227 (5th Cir. 1980). The record before this court is silent as to whether the district court was aware that Stein's state claim was barred by the state period of limitations. We therefore remand as to the state claim, Count II of the complaint, for further consideration by the district court.


Because we find that a suit which is subsequently dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute is not considered to have tolled the period of limitations, we affirm the district court's granting of summary judgment as to Stein's federal claims. Because we find that a federal court may retain pendant jurisdiction over a state claim which is barred by the state period of limitations, even though all federal claims have been dismissed, we remand as to Count II of the complaint.




The Honorable Homer Thornberry, Circuit Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation


We note the district court's order in light of the requirement of Rule 58, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that a judgment be prepared on a separate document. The Fifth Circuit appeared to hold in Calmaquip Engineering West Hemisphere v. West Coast Carriers, 650 F.2d 633 (5th Cir. 1981), that a judgment on a separate document is a prerequisite to appellate jurisdiction. We question that interpretation of Calmaquip in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Bankers Trust Co. v. Mallis, 435 U.S. 381, 98 S.Ct. 1117, 55 L.Ed.2d 357 (1978), and assume jurisdiction without remanding for this ministerial act. The parties in this case waive any alleged non-compliance

Referenced Cases

Citing Cases

Cases Citing This Case (50 of 500)

  1. Luken v. International Yacht Council, Ltd.
  2. Bruce Hanson and Irene C. Hanson v. Town of Flower Mound
  3. United States v. Benjamin Ruggiero and John Cerasani
  4. In Re Inspection of Norfolk Dredging Company. Appeal of United States Secretary of Labor
  5. National Bancard Corporation (Nabanco) v. Visa U.S.A., Inc.
  6. United States v. Guzman-Bera
  7. Willie T. Edwards v. Okaloosa County
  8. United States v. Phillip Bruce Lang
  9. Brenda Nelson v. Elliott v. The Greater Gadsden Housing Authority Ray Ingleheart
  10. Graham C. Garner, Etc. v. Tazwell W. Pearson
  11. Grand Jury Proceedings, In Re:
  12. Walker v. Smith
  13. Delong Equipment Company v. Washington Mills Abrasive Company
  14. United States v. Fernando Nino
  15. Dolcie Lawrence v. Peter Dunbar
  16. United States v. Oswald G. Blake, Leonard Eason
  17. Marie Lucie Jean v. Alan C. Nelson
  18. Georgia-Pacific Corporation v. Kai Lieberam
  19. United States v. Lewis Palzer
  20. United States v. Thomas A. Owen and Jacqueline L. Owen
  21. United States v. Michael Marolla
  22. United States v. Shawn Daniels
  23. United States v. Patrick E.G. Peart
  24. Herman Friedlander v. Troutman
  25. Andrews v. Lakeshore Rehabilitation
  26. United States v. Samuel Brantley
  27. United States v. Gilberto Gonzalez
  28. United States v. August Carl Benz
  29. United States v. Ramon Milian-Rodriguez
  30. Gary McDougald Cross-Appellant v. Vivian L. Jenson
  31. United States v. Southern Fabricating Company
  32. Walker Chandler v. Georgia Public Telecommunications Commission
  33. United States v. Bruce Graziano v. Bruce Graziano
  34. Dr. Kathleen Johnson Wu v. Dr. Joab Thomas
  35. KMS Restaurant Corp. v. Wendy's Int'l, Inc.
  36. United States v. Alberto Montes-Cardenas
  37. United States v. Francis William Hewes
  38. United States v. Antonio Lavere Thomas
  39. Louise Parrott v. Max v. Wilson, Etc.
  40. Marie Rose Pierre v. Perry Rivkind
  41. Don D. Maseda and Maria Maseda v. Honda Motor Company
  42. Suzanne Marcus v. Charles O. Dewitt
  43. United States v. Terry Lee Struyf v. Ronald Orvell Williams
  44. Weyman H. House, Jr. v. Bob L. Lavoie
  45. Robert Sharkey v. Food and Drug Administration
  46. Milton Diaz v. United States Citizenship
  47. Karl Savoury v. U.S. Attorney General
  48. Michigan Tech Fund v. Century National Bank of Broward
  49. United States v. William Howard Cross, Sr.
  50. Marshall Durbin Food Corporation v. The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States