Patricia E. Newton and John F. Ohliger v. United States of America, Oscar Redding and Karl Ohliger

PER CURIAM. We affirm the order of Chief Judge-Ryan, denying the appellants’ motion to vacate the dismissal of their complaint, for the reasons and on the authority cited in the companion case of Ohliger v.. United States, 2 Cir., 308 F.2d 667. Counsel’s breach of duty to his clients-is still more obvious in this case than-in the companion ease, for here, counsel did not even appear for the Review Call on December 7, 1960, at which time the-appellants’ complaint was dismissed without prejudice for lack of prosecution.. Counsel contends that he was not notified of the call, but Judge Ryan, in denying the motion to set aside the dismissal, found that notice was duly given. Furthermore the Law Journal carried notice-of this calendar call. Not only has the appellant failed to prosecute his suit and' to answer the Government’s interrogatories, but his motion to vacate the dismissal was delayed for another ten-months after his suit was dismissed. The-conduct of counsel is replete with dila-toriness which no court should condone; and counsel’s plea of ignorance of federal procedure only compounds his carelessness. We find no abuse of discretion by the District Judge. Affirmed from the-bench.