Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

194 F.2d 281

Docket No. 12879.

Jefferson v. Stockholders Pub. Co.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided Jan. 18, 1952.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 19, 1952.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1952-01-18

2 counsel of record

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1 (Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 1992)

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1952-01-18

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently March 1982

7 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

501952196019701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*282Clyde Thomas, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.

¶2Binford & Binford, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.

¶3Before MATHEWS, STEPHENS and ORR, Circuit Judges.

¶4MATHEWS, Circuit Judge.

¶5In the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, appellant, James Monroe Jefferson, a citizen of California, commenced an action for libel against appellee, Stockholders Publishing Company, Inc., a Nevada corporation, thereby seeking to recover of appellee damages in the sum of $200,000. Appellant commenced the action by filing a complaint on January 12, 1950. The clerk of the District Court did not issue a summons forthwith, as required by Rule 4(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A.1 He did, however, issue a summons on August 22, 1950. The summons was served on appellee on or before August 30, 1950. Thereafter appellee moved to dismiss the action, and the District Court, after hearing the motion, entered a judgment, .entitled “Order of dismissal,” ordering, adjudging and decreeing that the action be dismissed, and that appellee recover of appellant $100 as attorneys’ fees. This appeal is from that judgment.

¶6The stated grounds of the judgment were that appellant had failed to comply with Rule 4(a) ; that therefore the action should be dismissed under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;2and that, appellant having failed to comply with Rule 4(a), the District Court had no jurisdiction over appellee.

¶7There was, indeed, a failure to comply with Rule 4(a), namely, the clerk’s failure to issue a summons forthwith upon the filing of the complaint. This being an action for libel and no. undertaking for the payment of costs having been filed with the complaint,3 the clerk appears to have assumed that compliance with Rule 4(a) was precluded by § 1 of Act 4317 of Deering’s General Laws of California,4 The assumption was incorrect. Section 1 relates to State court actions, not to Federal court actions. In the Federal courts, compliance with Rule 4(a) is required in all civil actions, including actions for libel.

¶8However, the clerk’s failure to comply with Rule 4(a) was not attributable to appellant, did not deprive the District Court of jurisdiction and did not warrant dismissal of the action.

¶9Judgment reversed.

/194/f2d/281 · .json · Public domain