Court Opinion

ID: 9452869
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 17:54:54.259463+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:23.733762
License: Public Domain

McLEAN, District Judge
(concurring in the result):
As to the second ground discussed in the court’s opinion, it is my view that it was proper for the district judge, in an attempt to clarify the rather unusual pretrial order with which he had to deal, to direct plaintiff to set forth his cause of action clearly. By “cause of action” I understand the district judge to have meant plaintiff’s claim of fraud. I concur in the result reached by this court, however, because I believe that plaintiff’s statement of contentions dated July 15, 1966, although by no means a model of lucidity, constituted a sufficient enough compliance with the district judge’s direction so that the action should not have been dismissed under Rule 41(b).