JUNG et al. v. K. & D. MINING CO., INC., et al.
No. 619.
Decided April 28, 1958.
Zeamore A. Ader for petitioners.
Samuel J. Wettrick and Floyd F. Shields for respondents.
Per Curiam.
Petitioners seek our writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the Court of Appeals dismissing their appeal as untimely.
The facts are undisputed. Petitioners brought this action to recover the purchase price of securities alleged to have been worthless and fraudulently sold to them by respondents in violation of § 12 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (48 Stat. 84, 15 U. S. C. § 771), and of § 10 (b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (48 Stat. 891, 15 U. S. C. § 78j (b)), Respondents moved to dismiss petitioners’ first amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. On May 10, 1955, the District Court sustained the motion, dismissed the complaint, and granted petitioners “twenty days from this date within which to file an amended complaint.” On May 27, 1955, petitioners moved to vacate the order of May 10 dismissing the first amended complaint or, in the alternative, to extend the time to file an amended complaint. On that date (May 27, 1955) the Court overruled petitioners’ motion to vacate the order of May 10, but granted leave to petitioners to file an amended complaint within 20 days from May 27, 1955. Petitioners did not file an amended complaint. On March 25,1957, petitioners filed an instrument in the case by which they elected to stand on their first amended complaint. On that day (March 25, 1957) the Court ordered that “this cause of action be and it hereby is dismissed without costs.” On April 16, 1957, petitioners filed notice of appeal “from final judgment entered in this action on March 25, 1957.” Respondent moved in the Court of Appeals to dismiss the appeal as untimely. The Court of Appeals, holding that the order of May 27, 1955, became the District Court’s final judgment in the case when petitioners failed to file an amended complaint within the 20 days thereby allowed for that purpose, sustained the motion and dismissed the appeal of April 16, 1957, as not taken within 30 days from the entry of the judgment. 246 F. 2d 281.
We think that the District Court’s order of May 27, 1955, denying petitioners’ motion to vacate the order of May 10, 1955, but granting further leave to petitioners to amend their complaint, did not constitute the final judgment in the case. It did not direct “that all relief be denied” (Rule 58 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) but left the suit pending for further proceedings “either by amendment of the [complaint] or entry of a final judgment.” Missouri & Kansas Interurban R. Co. v. City of Olathe, 222 U. S. 185, 186. The situation did “not differ from an order sustaining a demurrer with leave to amend; another order of absolute dismissal after expiration of the time allowed for amendment is required to make a final disposition of the cause.” Cory Bros. & Co., Ltd., v. United States, 47 F. 2d 607. Cf. United States v. F. & M. Schaefer Brewing Co., 356 U. S. 227; Clark v. Kansas City, 172 U. S. 334; Crutcher v. Joyce, 134 F. 2d 809; Western Electric Co. v. Pacent Reproducer Corp., 37 F. 2d 14, and Riverside Oil & Rfg. Co. v. Dudley, 33 F. 2d 749.
Although to be sure nearly two years elapsed between the time petitioners were given leave to file an amended complaint and their motion of March 25, 1957, the defendants also did not, as they so easily could have done, nor did the District Court exercising power sua sponte over its own calendar, take any step to put a definitive end to the case and thereby fix an unequivocal terminal date for appealability. The undesirability of useless delays in litigation is more than offset by the hazards of confusion or misunderstanding as to the time for appeal.
It was the District Court’s order of March 25,1957, dismissing “this cause of action,” that constituted the final judgment in the case. It directed “that all relief be denied” and required “the clerk [to] enter judgment” accordingly (Rule 58). The appeal of April 16, 1957, was taken within 30 days from the date of entry of the judgment and hence was timely under 73 (a) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the cause is remanded to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence.