Page:Olcott v. Delaware Flood Co.pdf/6

 with respect to the 1976, 1977 and 1978 partnership interests, but reversed and remanded for reconsideration the district court's dismissal of the 1979 securities act claims and all pendant state law claims. , 76 F.3d 1538 (remanding Plaintiff's securities act claims for further factual findings and remanding Plaintiff's pendant state claims with instructions to conduct the appropriate death knell analysis). also affirmed the district court's imposition of the monetary sanction, but declined to rule upon the merits of the default order after concluding the court's entry of default was not a final determination. at 1558-59. In II, we assumed the district court intended to "abandon" its entry of default when it entered an order dismissing all claims without  entering judgment on the default pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b). . expressly instructed the district court that it could revisit the issue on remand: "If the court ultimately revives Mr. Olcott's cause of action based on his 1979 investment, the court could take the opportunity to revisit the appropriateness of a default judgment at that time." . at 1559.

On remand, the district court again dismissed as time barred the federal securities claims based on Plaintiff's 1979 investment, but elected to retain pendant jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law tort, fraud and breach of contract claims. The court also indicated its intent to apply the default entered prior to the appeal. At a January 1998 -6-