E. R. Fitzsimmons v. Bruce W. Gilpin

The district court dismissed appellant’s action for want of prosecution. We affirm.

On October 27, 1964, appellant filed suit on appellee’s promissory note in the District Court for the Western District of Washington, Northern Division. Appellee was served November 16, 1964. The clerk advised appellant (a non-resident of the district) of the district court’s Rule 5 which required that a local attor ney be joined as counsel of record within ten days.

On December 30, 1964, appellee filed a motion to transfer the action to the Southern Division of the district, to strike the complaint on the ground that local Rule 5 had not been complied with, and to dismiss the action on the ground that another action was pending on the same promissory note in a superior court of the State of California. Appellee noticed the motion for hearing, but appellant did not appear. On January 18, 1965, the district court granted appellee’s motion to transfer without prejudice to appellee’s alternate motions to strike and to dismiss.

On March 1, 1965, the clerk again called appellant’s attention to local Rule 5, suggesting compliance “as soon as possible.”

On February 10, 1966, the clerk advised…