Robert H. Fendler v. Westgate-California Corp., 527 F.2d 1168 (9th Cir. 1975).

Robert H. Fendler v. Westgate-California Corp., 527 F.2d 1168 (9th Cir. 1975). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite

green Positive treatment 34.3 score

63 citation events (25 in the last 25 years) across 14 distinct courts.

Strongest positive: Pesanti, No. 9:25-cv-00161 (D. Mont. Nov. 24, 2025)

Treatment trajectory · 1976 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of

1976 2001 2026

How cited ↗

Cited for

At page 1170 dismissal for failure to obey orders of the court reviewed for abuse of discretion45 citing cases2 citing courts put it this way

Pesanti, No. 9:25-cv-00161 (D. Mont. Nov. 24, 2025).
Fendler v. Westgate–California Corp., 527 F.2d 1168, 1170 (9th Cir.1975).
Karr v. NBC Universal Media, LLC, No. 9:25-cv-00033 (D. Mont. Apr. 29, 2025).
Fendler v. Westgate–California Corp., 527 F.2d 1168, 1170 (9th Cir.1975).
Schertzer v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 3:19-cv-00264 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2025).
The named plaintiffs 2 and their counsel must have “zeal and competence” to protect the interests of the class. 3 Fendler v. Westgate-Cal. Corp., 527 F.2d 1168, 1170 (9th Cir. 1975). 4 Plaintiff asserts she is an adequate representative be…
Poulson v. Ulbricht, No. 9:24-cv-00096 (D. Mont. Oct. 1, 2024).
Fendler v. Westgate—California Corp., 527 F.2d 1168, 1170 (9th Cir. 1975).
Poulson v. Christensen, No. 9:24-cv-00108 (D. Mont. Sept. 9, 2024).
Fendler v. Westgate-California Corp., 527 F.2d 1168, 1170 (9th Cir. 1975).
Poulson v. Christensen, No. 9:24-cv-00108 (D. Mont. Aug. 26, 2024).
Fendler v. Westgate–California Corp., 527 F.2d 1168, 1170 (9th Cir.1975).
Raines v. Front Porch Communities & Servs., No. 3:19-cv-01539 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2024).
Fendler v. Westgate-Cal. Corp., 527 F.2d 1168, 1170 (9th Cir. 1975). 15 The adequacy-of-representation requirement ‘tend[s] to merge’ with the commonality and 16 typicality criteria of Rule 23(a).” Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S…
Poulson v. Ulbricht, No. 9:24-cv-00096 (D. Mont. Aug. 9, 2024).
Fendler v. Westgate–California Corp., 527 F.2d 1168, 1170 (9th Cir.1975).
Melvin v. Livingston, No. 9:23-cv-00136 (D. Mont. May 8, 2024).
P. 41(b), “the Court has the authority to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or to comply with a court order.” (Doc. 8 at 2 (citing Fendler v. Westgate-Cal. Corp., 527 F.2d 1168, 1170 (9th Cir. 1975)).) Judge DeSoto identified the…
Abrogina v. Kentech Consulting, Inc., No. 3:16-cv-00662 (S.D. Cal. May 8, 2023).
Fendler v. Westgate-California 21 Corp., 527 F.2d 1168, 1170 (9th Cir. 1975). 22 Here, Plaintiff asserts there are no conflicts between herself and absent class 23 members, and she and her counsel will zealously prosecute this case.

Show 35 more citing cases

Aliff v. Vervent, Inc., No. 3:20-cv-00697 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2023).
Fendler v. Westgate-Cal. Corp., 527 F.2d 1168, 1170 (9th Cir. 1975). 10 Defendants challenge each Plaintiff’s competence by highlighting that Plaintiffs do 11 not know what a subclass is, are unfamiliar with the statutes of limitation, FTC…
Nova Donald Novobilski v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 2:22-cv-00147 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2022).
The decision to dismiss for failure to comply with an order 20 is within the discretion of the trial judge.” Fendler v. Westgate-Cal. Corp., 527 F.2d 1168, 1170 (9th 21 Cir. 1975) (citing O’Brien v. Sinatra, 315 F.2d 637, 641 (9th Cir. 196…
Doe v. McAleenan, No. 3:19-cv-02119 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2020).
Fendler v. Westgate-Cal. Corp., 22 527 F.2d 1168, 1170 (9th Cir. 1975). 23 Petitioners satisfy Rule 23(a)(4)’s adequacy requirement.
Aho v. Americredit Fin. Servs., Inc., 277 F.R.D. 609 (S.D. Cal. 2011).
Fendler v. Westgate-California Corp., 527 F.2d 1168, 1170 (9th Cir.1975).
White v. Countrywide Fin. Corp., 277 F.R.D. 586 (S.D. Cal. 2011).
Fendler v. Westgate-California Corp., 527 F.2d 1168, 1170 (9th Cir.1975).
Rattray v. Woodbury Cnty., IA, 614 F.3d 831 (8th Cir. 2010).
E.g., Amchem, 521 U.S. at 626 n. 20, 117 S.Ct. 2231 ; Fendler v. Westgate-Cal. Corp., 527 F.2d 1168, 1170 (9th Cir.1975); see 7A Wright, Miller & Kane, supra, § 1769.1, at 448-53.
Blackwell v. Skywest Airlines, Inc., 245 F.R.D. 453 (S.D. Cal. 2007).
Fendler v. Westgate-California Corp., 527 F.2d 1168, 1170 (9th Cir.1975).
Evans v. IAC/Interactive Corp., 244 F.R.D. 568 (C.D. Cal. 2007).
Fendler v. Westgate-California Corp., 527 F.2d 1168, 1170 (9th Cir.1975).
Sepulveda v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 237 F.R.D. 229 (C.D. Cal. 2006).
Fendler v. Westgate-California Corp., 527 F.2d 1168, 1170 (9th Cir.1975).
Goldman v. Alhadeff, 131 F.R.D. 188 (W.D. Wash. 1990).
Fendler v. Westgate-Califomia Corp., 527 F.2d 1168, 1170 (9th Cir.1975); Hatch v. Reliance Ins.
Guam Sasaki Corp., D/B/A Julale Shopping Ctr. v. Diana's Inc., 881 F.2d 713 (9th Cir. 1989).
This Circuit has held that a district court may dismiss an action for failure of a party to obey an order of the court. “[0]ur court has recognized an inherent power of the trial court to dismiss in order to protect the integrity of its or…
Griffin & Dickson v. United States, 16 Cl. Ct. 347 (Ct. Cl. 1989).
Fendler v. Westgate California Corp., 527 F.2d 1168, 1170 (9th Cir.1975); Metadure, 6 Cl.Ct. at 67 .
Hatch v. Reliance Ins., 758 F.2d 409 (9th Cir. 1985). 2 cites
(dismissal for failure to obey orders of the court reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Metadure Corp. v. United States, 6 Cl. Ct. 61 (Ct. Cl. 1984). 2 cites
Fendler v. Westgate California Corp., 527 F.2d 1168, 1170 (9th Cir.1975).
White Mountain Apache Tribe v. United States, 5 Cl. Ct. 288 (Ct. Cl. 1984).
The trial court’s inherent power to dismiss an action in order to protect the integrity of its orders, Fendler v. Westgate-California Corp., 527 F.2d 1168, 1170 (9th Cir.1975), is recognized in RUSCC 41(b), providing in pertinent part: “Fo…
33 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1714, 33 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 34,137 Naomi C. Wrighten, Jesse Blocker, Jr., & Wilma P. Graham, Individually & on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Metro. Hospitals, Inc., an Oregon Non-Profit Corp., Emanuel Lutheran Charity Bd., Inc., an Oregon Non-Profit Corp., Doing Bus. as Emanuel Hosp., & Red Top Inc., a Delaware Corp. Doing Bus. in Oregon as Red Top Hosp. Servs., Inc., 726 F.2d 1346 (9th Cir. 1984).
Fendler v. Westgate-California Corp., 527 F.2d 1168, 1170 (9th Cir.1975).
Wrighten v. Metro. Hospitals, Inc., 726 F.2d 1346 (9th Cir. 1984).
Fendler v. Westgate-California Corp., 527 F.2d 1168, 1170 (9th Cir.1975).
Phoceene Sous-Marine, S. A. v. U. S. Phosmarine, Inc., & Samuel G. Lecocq, 682 F.2d 802 (9th Cir. 1982).
Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248 , 57 S.Ct. 163 , 81 L.Ed. 153 (1936); Fendler v. West-gate-California Corp., 527 F.2d 1168, 1170 (9th Cir. 1975); O’Brien v. Sinatra, 315 F.2d 637, 641 (9th Cir. 1963).
In re \Santa Barbara Like It Is Today\" Copyright Infringement Litig.", 94 F.R.D. 105 (D. Nev. 1982). 2 cites
Link v. Wabash Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 , 82 S.Ct. 1386, 1388-1389 , 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962); Fendler v. Westgate California Corp., 527 F.2d 1168, 1170 (9th Cir. 1975); O’Brien v. Sinatra, 315 F.2d 637, 641 (9th Cir. 1963).
Beacom v. Vets. Admin., 89 F.R.D. 515 (W.D. Mo. 1981).
Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-33 , 82 S.Ct. 1386 [1388], 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962), and to protect the integrity of its orders, Fendler v. Westgate-California Corp., 527 F.2d 1168, 1170 (9th Cir. 1975).
Soc. Servicess Union, Local 535 v. Cnty. of Santa Clara, 609 F.2d 944 (9th Cir. 1979).
Morris v. McCaddin, 553 F.2d 866, 870 (4th Cir. 1977); Brick v. CPC lnt’1 Inc., 547 F.2d 185 (2d Cir. 1976); Fendler v. Westgate-Califomia Corp., 527 F.2d 1168, 1170 (9th Cir. 1975); Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure, § 1765, p…
21 Fair empl.prac.cas. 684, 21 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 30,459 Soc. Servs. Union, Local 535, Serv. Employees Int'l Union, Afl-Cio & Local 715, Serv. Employees Int'l Union, Afl-Cio v. Cnty. of Santa Clara, 609 F.2d 944 (9th Cir. 1979).
Co., 508 F.2d 239, 247 (3d Cir. 1975) 5 Susman v. Lincoln American Corp., 561 F.2d 86, 90 (7th Cir. 1977); Schy v. Susquehanna Corp., 419 F.2d 1112, 1116 (7th Cir. 1970); Harris v. Palm Springs Alpine Estates, Inc., 329 F.2d 909, 914 (9th…
Inda v. United Air Lines, Inc., 83 F.R.D. 1 (N.D. Cal. 1979).
Fendler v. Westgate California Corporation, 527 F.2d 1168, 1170 (9th Cir. 1975). 1.
Bettye J. Smith, Appellant, v. Merchants & Farmers Bank of West Helena, Arkansas, Appellee, 574 F.2d 982 (8th Cir. 1978).
Co., 540 F.2d at 709; Fendler v. Westgate-California Corp., 527 F.2d 1168, 1170 (9th Cir. 1975); Wright v. Stone Container Corp., 524 F.2d 1058, 1061 (8th Cir. 1975).
Butler Ex Rel. Butler v. Circulus, Inc., 557 S.W.2d 469 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977).
Louis Music Supply Company, Inc., 539 F.2d 1191, 1193 [1] (8th Cir. 1976); Asociación de Empleados del Instituto de Cul-tura Puertorriqueña v. Morales, 538 F.2d 915, 916 [1] (1st Cir. 1976); Fendler v. Westgate California Corp., 527 F.2d 1…
M. S. v. Wermers, 557 F.2d 170 (8th Cir. 1977).
Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-33 , 82 S.Ct. 1386 , 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962), and to protect the integrity of its orders, Fendler v. Westgate-California Corp., 527 F.2d 1168, 1170 (9th Cir. 1975).
M. S., on Behalf of Herself & All Others Similarly Situated v. Robert Wermers, Doty Brown, John Mitchell, Ira Wintrode, Stewart Steele, Donald Kelly, N. R. Whitney, J. T. Elston & Pat Tlustos, 557 F.2d 170 (8th Cir. 1977).
Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-33 , 82 S.Ct. 1386 , 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962), and to protect the integrity of its orders, Fendler v. Westgate-California Corp., 527 F.2d 1168, 1170 (9th Cir. 1975).
Harriss v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc., 74 F.R.D. 24 (N.D. Cal. 1977).
Fendler v. Westgate California Corp., 527 F.2d 1168, 1170 (9th Cir. 1975); Lau v. Standard Oil Co., 70 F.R.D. 526, 527 (N.D.Cal.1975).
Rogers v. United States Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 96 F.R.D. 149 (N.D. Cal. 1982).
Harriss v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 74 F.R.D. 24, 42 (N.D.Cal.1977); see Fendler v. Westgate California Corporation, 527 F.2d 1168, 1170 (9th Cir.1975).
Cowan v. State of Montana, No. 9:23-cv-00108 (D. Mont. Dec. 11, 2023).
P. 41(b); see also Fendler v. Westgate-California Corp., 527 F.2d 1168, 1170 (9th Cir. 1975).
Gilbert v. MoneyMutual, LLC, 318 F.R.D. 614 (N.D. Cal. 2016).
(noting that representative plaintiffs and counsel also must have sufficient “zeal and competence” to protect the interests of the class)
Wolph v. Acer Am. Corp., 272 F.R.D. 477 (N.D. Cal. 2011).
(noting that representative plaintiffs and counsel also must have sufficient “zeal and competence” to protect the interests of the class)
Pashek v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, 82 F.R.D. 62 (D. Ariz. 1979).
See, e. g., Fendler v. Westgate California Corp., 527 F.2d 1168, 1170 (9th Cir. 1975); 3B Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 23.07[1] (2d ed. 1978).
Jaurigui v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, 82 F.R.D. 64 (D. Ariz. 1979).
See, e. g., Fendler v. Westgate California Corp., 527 F.2d 1168, 1170 (9th Cir. 1975); 3B Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 23.07[1] (2d ed. 1978).
Munoz v. Arizona State Univ., 80 F.R.D. 670 (D. Ariz. 1978).
See, e. g., Fendler v. Westgate-California Corp., 527 F.2d 1168, 1170 (9th Cir. 1975); Gonzales v. Cassidy, 474 F.2d 67, 72-73 (5th Cir. 1973); J.

Treatment classes

Cited as authority (rule) 40

Mentioned in passing 13

Cited "see, e.g." 6

Cited "see" 4

Treatment by court

ca9	0R/0Y/10G	17
casd	0R/0Y/8G	9
mtd	0R/0Y/8G	8
cand	0R/0Y/5G	7
ca8	0R/0Y/4G	4
cc	0R/0Y/4G	4
azd	0R/0Y/3G	3
cacd	0R/0Y/3G	3
nvd	0R/0Y/2G	2
waed	0R/0Y/0G	2
flmd	0R/0Y/0G	1
moctapp	0R/0Y/1G	1

Frequently cited alongside

#1	green	Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (1982)	co-cited 12×
#2	green	Hansberry v. Lee, 311 U.S. 32 (1940)	co-cited 11×
#3	green	Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997)	co-cited 11×
#5	green	Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998)	co-cited 11×
#8	red	Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463 (1978)	co-cited 9×
#12	green	Blackie v. Barrack, 524 F.2d 891 (9th Cir. 1975)	co-cited 9×

Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…

Robert H. FENDLER, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WESTGATE-CALIFORNIA CORPORATION Et Al., Defendants-Appellees

73--2816.

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Dec 31, 1975.

527 F.2d 1168

21 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 215

1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 11226

Google Scholar ↗ | CourtListener ↗

Gerald E. Kriehn (argued), Beverly Hills, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant., Richard H. Cooper (argued), Freshman, Marantz, Comsky & Deutsch, Beverly Hills, Cal., Irwin F. Woodland, Los Angeles (argued), Donnelley, Hulden, Lovett & Stanley, San Diego, Cal., for defendants-appellees.

Chambers, Jameson, Koelsch, Per Curiam.

Cited by 57 opinions | Published

OPINION

Before CHAMBERS and KOELSCH, Circuit Judges, and JAMESON, * District Judge. PER CURIAM:

Fendler appeals from an order of the district court dismissing his third amended complaint with prejudice and denying his motion for certification of the suit as a class action. We affirm.

Fendler is an attorney who on May 20, 1968, purchased 20 shares of Class A common stock of Westgate-California Corporation. In March, 1972, Fendler, through his law partner, filed his original complaint against forty-six named defendants (more were added in later complaints). The complaint seemed to be in the nature of a derivative action and seemed to allege injury to the West-gate-California Corporation as a result of transactions with some of the other defendants. Defendants filed motions for more definite statement and for the posting of a cost bond with respect to the corporate derivative claims. These motions were granted.

Fendler then filed his first amended complaint which was quickly followed by a second amended complaint. The defendants filed motions to dismiss, strike and for more definite statement. The court, after lengthy argument, entered a detailed order dismissing the action as to some defendants and striking various allegations. The order contained leave to file a third amended complaint, provided the complaint was limited to certain expressly stated claims. The order indicated that the court would grant no further leave to amend.

Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint which did not meet the specifications set out by the court in its order. The defendants again filed motions to[*1170] dismiss, strike, and for more definite statement. The court dismissed the third amended complaint with prejudice and at the same time denied Fendler’s motion to maintain the suit as a class action.

Federal Rule 41(b) [F.R.Civ.P. 41(b)] allows the court to dismiss an action for failure of the plaintiff to obey an order of the court. Further, our court has recognized an inherent power of the trial court to dismiss in order to protect the integrity of its orders. O’Brien v. Sinatra, 315 F.2d 637 (9th Cir. 1963). The decision to dismiss for failure to comply with an order is within the discretion of the trial judge. Von Poppenheim v. Portland Boxing & Wrestling Com’n, 442 F.2d 1047 (9th Cir. 1971). After an examination of the pleadings filed by the plaintiff and the orders entered by the district court, we cannot say that dismissal of this final complaint with prejudice constituted an abuse of discretion.

The district court refused to grant certification to the class proposed by Fendler on the grounds that the plaintiff’s prosecution of the case to that point indicated that he would not be an adequate representative of the class. The district court has discretion in deciding whether to grant a motion for class certification. Kamm v. California City Development Co., 509 F.2d 205, 210 (9th Cir. 1975). Rule 23(a) lists prerequisites for the maintenance of the class action. One of the prerequisites is that the party seeking to represent the class will be an adequate representative of the class interests. One of the criteria for adequacy of representation would appear to be the zeal and competence of the counsel and party who wish to prosecute the action. We find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s determination based on the plaintiff’s deposition and his overall prosecution of the case, that no class should be certified because plaintiff would be an inadequate representative.

Your account

Appearance

Create a free account

You’re in.