Homer Crockett v. The Walt Disney Company
Cases that cite this one
36 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- SMALLEY v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE (United States Tax Court 2001)
- Natalia Nazarova v. Immigration & Naturalization Service (7th Cir. 1999)
- Ryther v. Comm'r (United States Tax Court 2016)
- Metz v. Comm'r (United States Tax Court 2015)
- Knutsen-Rowell, Inc. v. Comm'r (United States Tax Court 2011)
- West Covina Motors, Inc. v. Comm'r (United States Tax Court 2009)
- John Michael Dunkin v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 2005)
- Tribune Company, As Agent of and Successor By Merger to the Former the Times Mirror Company, Itself and its Consolidated Subsidiaries v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 2005)
- Electronic Arts, Inc. and Subsidiaries v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 2002)
- Koch v. Lewis (United States District Court for the District of Arizona 2001)
- D. G. Smalley and Nell R. Smalley v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 2001)
- American Stores Company and Subsidiaries v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 2000)
- Archie L. and Louise B. Honbarrier v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 2000)
- Clearwater County, Idaho v. U.S. Army Corps. of Engineers (9th Cir. 1998)
- Allen v. Great American Ins. Co. (9th Cir. 1998)
- Claudia Aguirre-Lopez v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (9th Cir. 1998)
- Emma Bradford v. Clark County School District (9th Cir. 1998)
- Castaneda v. Marshall (9th Cir. 1998)
- James Nelson Blair v. J. Lynch, a Correctional Officer and Sergeant at San Quentin (9th Cir. 1998)
- Felipe B. Cruz v. William S. Cohen, Secretary of Defense, United States of America (9th Cir. 1998)
- Stanley Collins v. Whatcom County, Wa, and Adrian Arendse and Jane Doe Arendse, Husband and Wife and the Marital Community Thereof (9th Cir. 1998)
- Evans Bargmann, Husband Evelyn Bargmann, Wife v. Transcontinental Motor Hotels Inc., a Delaware Corporation (9th Cir. 1998)
- Berry Petroleum Company and Subsidiaries v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (9th Cir. 1998)
- Reginalda Escobar Cetino v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (9th Cir. 1998)
- Marianne Barklage v. City of San Bernadino, James F. Penman, Tom Minor, Edward v. Negrete, and F.J. Curlin (9th Cir. 1998)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
142 F.3d 442
1998 Copr.L.Dec. P 27,811
Homer CROCKETT, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 97-56492.
D.C. No. CV-97-03730-R.
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 20, 1998**.
Decided April 22, 1998.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding.
Before BRUNETTI, RYMER, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM*
Homer Crockett appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his copyright infringement action against the Walt Disney Company ("Disney") for failure to prosecute. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) dismissal for abuse of discretion, see McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 797 (9th Cir. 1991), and we vacate and remand.
Disney filed a motion to dismiss Crockett's complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and 8(a). The district court granted the motion without prejudice, and gave Crockett ten days to amend the complaint. After Crockett failed to file an amended complaint, the district dismissed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).
Because the district court failed to state its reasons for the initial dismissal, we are unable to determine why the district court ordered Crockett to file an amended complaint. Based on the record, we are unable to conclude what the district court had in mind in dismissing the complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and 8(a). We cannot say the complaint wholly fails to state a claim for relief.
Therefore, we conclude that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing Crockett's complaint for failure to prosecute. See McKeever, 932 F.2d at 797 (failure to file an amended complaint is not an unreasonable failure to prosecute if district court erroneously dismissed prior complaint).
Accordingly, we vacate the district court's dismissal of Crockett's action, and remand for proceedings consistent with this disposition.1
VACATED and REMANDED.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3
We reject the parties' remaining contentions because they lack merit
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.