Velez Vda deFontanez v. Jefferson Pilot, 36 F.3d 1089 (1st Cir. 1994). · Go Syfert
Velez Vda deFontanez v. Jefferson Pilot, 36 F.3d 1089 (1st Cir. 1994). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
56 citation events (14 in the last 25 years) across 15 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: In re: Mark J. Escoto (bap9, 2015-05-15)
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994 2010 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" In re: Mark J. Escoto
9th Cir. BAP · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See Field v. Mans, 4 36 F.3d 1089 (1st.
cited Cited "see" In re: Mark J. Escoto
9th Cir. BAP · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See Field v. Mans, 4 36 F.3d 1089 (1st.
cited Cited "see" Field v. Mans
1st Cir. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Field v. Mans, 36 F.3d 1089 (1st Cir. 1994) (table), vacated by Field v. Mans, 516 U.S. 59 (1995).
cited Cited "see" Field v. Mans
1st Cir. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Field v. Mans, 36 F.3d 1089 (1st Cir.1994) (table), vacated by Field v. Mans, 516 U.S. 59 , 116 S.Ct. 437 , 133 L.Ed.2d 351 (1995).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Caribbean Forms Manufacturers Inc. v. Karon
D.P.R. · 1999 · signal: see also · confidence low
This rule does not exclude other evidence of the circumstances under which the agreement was made or to which it is related such as the situation of the subject matter of the instrument or that of the parties, or to establish illegality or fraud.”); see also Hopgood v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 839 F.Supp. 98, 104 (D.P.R.1993), aff'd, 36 F.3d 1089 , 1994 WL 510135 (1st Cir.1994); Vulcan Tools of P.R. v. Makita U.S.A., Inc., 23 F.3d 564, 567 (1st Cir.1994) (“When an agreement leaves no doubt as to the intention of the parties, a court should not look beyond the literal terms of…
cited Cited "see, e.g." Cross v. Cunningham
1st Cir. · 1996 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Stow v. Horan, 36 F.3d 1089 (1st Cir.1994). 2.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Cross v. Cunningham
1st Cir. · 1996 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Stow v. ___ _________ ____ Horan, 36 F.3d 1089 (1st Cir. 1994). _____ 2.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Velez Vda deFontanez
v.
Jefferson Pilot
93-2268.
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Aug 15, 1994.
36 F.3d 1089
Unpublished

36 F.3d 1089

NOTICE: First Circuit Local Rule 36.2(b)6 states unpublished opinions may be cited only in related cases.
Marta Velez Vda DE FONTANEZ, Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
JEFFERSON PILOT LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Appellee.

No. 93-2268

United States Court of Appeals,
First Circuit.

August 15, 1994.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO [Hon. Raymond L. Acosta, U.S. District Judge ]

Jose L. Delgado Cadilla and Castro & Delgado Cadilla on brief for appellant.

Jose Hector Vivas and Vivas & Vivas on brief for appellee.

D.PUERTO RICO

VACATED AND REMANDED.

Before Torruella, Chief Judge, Selya and Cyr, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam.

1

Plaintiff requested a voluntary dismissal without prejudice. The district court "granted" plaintiff's motion, but dismissed with prejudice and denied plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, which objected to the dismissal with prejudice. Plaintiff has appealed from those orders.

2

While neither the plaintiff nor the district court referred to any particular rule, we conclude that the dismissal plaintiff requested, and the court entered, was pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) (voluntary dismissal by order of court), as there is no basis in the record before us for an involuntary dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). We conclude that the court abused its discretion in dismissing with prejudice without first giving plaintiff the opportunity to withdraw her request for voluntary dismissal. In this regard, we agree generally with the discussions in Gravatt v. Columbia University, 845 F.2d 54, 55-56 (2d Cir. 1988), and Andes v. Versant Corp., 788 F.2d 1033, 1037 (4th Cir. 1986), that if a plaintiff's motion to dismiss without prejudice is to be denied, the plaintiff ordinarily should be given the opportunity to allow the case to proceed on the merits, rather than being subjected to a dismissal with prejudice.

3

Plaintiff asks that we direct the district court to dismiss without prejudice. We will not do so because on the present record we can not say that plaintiff was entitled as a matter of law to an unconditional dismissal without prejudice.

4

We summarily vacate the order of dismissal and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Loc. R. 27.1.

5

Vacated and remanded.