Harvey's Wagon Wheel, Inc. v. Toshi Van Blitter
959 F.2d 153, 92 Daily Journal DAR 4057, 92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2544 (1992)
Rule of Law:
In federal diversity actions, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) governs dismissal for failure to prosecute, preempting conflicting state rules that mandate dismissal after a specific period of time.
Facts:
- Toshi Van Blitter gambled at Harvey's Wagon Wheel and incurred significant losses.
- Van Blitter executed six negotiable instruments totaling $60,000 to cover her gaming losses.
- She negotiated and delivered these instruments to Harvey's Wagon Wheel.
- Harvey's Wagon Wheel presented the instruments to Van Blitter's bank for payment.
- Van Blitter's bank dishonored the instruments, leaving the debt unpaid.
Procedural Posture:
- Harvey's filed suit against Van Blitter in the Federal District Court for the District of Nevada.
- After five years elapsed without trial, Harvey's moved for summary judgment.
- Van Blitter opposed summary judgment and moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Nevada Rule 41(e) required mandatory dismissal.
- The District Court applied the federal rule, denied the motion to dismiss, and granted summary judgment in favor of Harvey's.
- Van Blitter appealed the judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which permits discretionary dismissal for failure to prosecute, apply in a diversity action to the exclusion of a state rule that mandates dismissal after five years?
Opinions:
Majority - Beezer
Yes, the federal rule applies because it is coextensive with the state rule and properly enacted under the Rules Enabling Act. The court applied the multi-step inquiry established in Olympic Sports. First, the court determined that Federal Rule 41(b) and Nevada Rule 41(e) are 'coextensive' because they both address involuntary dismissal for lack of prosecution; the federal rule is sufficiently broad to cover the dispute even though it is discretionary while the state rule is mandatory. Second, under the Hanna v. Plumer analysis, the federal rule is valid as it falls within the Rules Enabling Act and constitutional limits. Finally, applying the federal rule does not violate the 'twin aims' of Erie (discouraging forum shopping and avoiding inequitable administration). The court reasoned that no rational plaintiff would forum shop based on the expectation of a five-year delay, and both rules serve similar judicial housekeeping functions.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the supremacy of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in diversity cases when a direct conflict with state procedural law exists. By clarifying the 'coextensive' standard, the court affirmed that federal rules need not be identical to state rules to displace them; they need only be broad enough to cover the same 'point in dispute.' This decision limits the application of state procedural statutes in federal court, particularly those regarding case management and dismissal timelines, ensuring uniformity in federal procedure even when state laws offer stricter mandatory outcomes.
