From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Miller v. American Export Lines Inc.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Feb 8, 1963
313 F.2d 218 (2d Cir. 1963)

Summary

declaring district court's grant of summary judgment "a nullity" because the "ruling dismissed a complaint that had already been withdrawn"

Summary of this case from RX Sav., LLC v. Besch

Opinion

No. 236, Docket 27912.

Argued January 31, 1963.

Decided February 8, 1963.

St. Clair E. Miller, pro se, appellant.

Stephen K. Carr, of Haight, Gardner, Poor Havens, New York City, (J. Ward O'Neill, New York City, of counsel) for appellee.

Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, and SMITH and HAYS, Circuit Judges.


Appellant, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint which though inartistically drafted, appears to have alleged a cause of action for wrongful denial of employment, in violation of a Working Agreement between the National Maritime Union, of which appellant is a member, and the appellee corporation. On August 15, 1962, appellees moved for summary judgment. Thereafter, on September 16, 1962 appellant filed an amended complaint as of right apparently alleging a cause of action for defamation, as well as a claim of wrongful denial of employment. On October 16, 1962, the district court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment and ordered the action dismissed.

Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a) "a party may amend his pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served * * *." A motion for summary judgment is not a "responsive pleading" within the meaning of Rule 15(a). Fed.R.Civ.P. 7(a); see Rogers v. Girard Trust Co., 159 F.2d 239 (6th Cir., 1947); 3 Moore, Federal Practice 825-26 (1948).

On the hearing of this appeal before us it developed that the district court at the time that it passed on the motion for summary judgment as to the first complaint was not aware of the fact that the plaintiff had filed an amended complaint.

Since the court did not have the amended complaint before it, its ruling dismissed a complaint that had already been withdrawn and the judgment was a nullity. Cf. Park-In Theatres, Inc. v. Paramount-Richards Theatres, Inc., 9 F.R.D. 267, 269 (D.Del. 1949); Angelini v. Merchants Despatch Transport Co., 253 App. Div. 506, 3 N.Y.S.2d 493 (4th Dept. 1938).

The appeal must therefore be dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.


Summaries of

Miller v. American Export Lines Inc.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Feb 8, 1963
313 F.2d 218 (2d Cir. 1963)

declaring district court's grant of summary judgment "a nullity" because the "ruling dismissed a complaint that had already been withdrawn"

Summary of this case from RX Sav., LLC v. Besch

declaring district court's grant of summary judgment "a nullity" because "the ruling dismissed a complaint that had already been withdrawn"

Summary of this case from Saunders v. USD 353

filing of amended complaint after defendant had moved for summary judgment served to remove original complaint from court's consideration

Summary of this case from Kucher v. Alternative Treatment Center of Paterson
Case details for

Miller v. American Export Lines Inc.

Case Details

Full title:St. Clair E. MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMERICAN EXPORT LINES, INC.…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Date published: Feb 8, 1963

Citations

313 F.2d 218 (2d Cir. 1963)

Citing Cases

Zaidi v. Ehrlich

Accordingly, neither a motion to dismiss nor a motion for summary judgment extinguishes a plaintiff's right…

Williams v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company

April 1, 2008) (declining to consider previously filed dispositive motions where plaintiffs had filed a third…