From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mumpower v. England

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Sep 8, 2008
292 F. App'x 567 (9th Cir. 2008)

Opinion

No. 07-55037.

Submitted August 26, 2008.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument and therefore denies appellant's request. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed September 8, 2008.

Maury Mills, Jr., Esq., Ventura, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Debra W. Yang, Esq., USLA-Office of the U.S. Attorney Civil Tax Divisions, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Margaret M. Morrow, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-05-08277-MMM.

Before: SCHROEDER, KLEINFELD, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.



MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.


Edward G. Mumpower appeals from the district court's order dismissing his employment discrimination action for failure to serve the summons and complaint in a timely manner. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Townsel v. County of Contra Costa, 820 F.2d 319, 320 (9th Cir. 1987). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in the context of this case in dismissing Mumpower's action without prejudice because the circumstances did not compel the conclusion that his attorney's admitted failure to review the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure excused his failure to effect timely service. See id. (holding that counsel's ignorance of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does not constitute good cause).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Mumpower v. England

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Sep 8, 2008
292 F. App'x 567 (9th Cir. 2008)
Case details for

Mumpower v. England

Case Details

Full title:Edward G. MUMPOWER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gordon R. ENGLAND, Secretary…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Sep 8, 2008

Citations

292 F. App'x 567 (9th Cir. 2008)

Citing Cases

Cota v. Carrows Rests.

Inadvertence, ignorance, or oversight of counsel does not constitute excusable neglect. See Wei v. State of…

McDonald v. Shelton

The court found the attorney's allegations of good faith "boiled down to the fact that he had failed to read…