Post Process

Everything to do with E-discovery & ESI

Archive for the ‘Dismissal of Case’ Category

Case Blurb: Hawaiian Airlines; Factors to Consider before Imposing a Default or Dismissal Sanction

Posted by rjbiii on November 13, 2007

A default or dismissal sanction can be imposed only based upon a finding of willfulness, fault, or bad faith. In addition, the court should consider: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its dockets; (3) the risk of prejudice to the party seeking sanctions; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.

A list of factors like this one “amounts to a way for a district judge to think about what to do, not a series of conditions precedent before the judge can do anything, and not a script for making what the district judge does appeal proof.”

In re Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 2007 WL 3172642 (Bkrtcy. D.Hawaii October 30, 2007).

Posted in 9th Circuit, Case Blurbs, D. Hawaii, Default Judgment, Dismissal of Case | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Case Blurb; Easton Sports; Dismissal an extreme sanction

Posted by rjbiii on September 4, 2007

Justice requires that any sanction imposed be proportionate to the circumstances. Dismissal of a claim or defense is an extreme sanction and should be imposed only in extreme situations where there is evidence of willfulness, bad faith, or substantial fault by a non-complying party. Easton Sports, Inc. v. Warrior Lacrosse, Inc., 2006 WL 2811261 (E.D. Mich. 2006).

Posted in 6th Circuit, Case Blurbs, Dismissal of Case, E.D. Mich., Magistrate Judge Donald A. Scheer, Sanctions | Leave a Comment »

Case Blurb: Plasse; Elements for dismissal of case as sanction, 1st Circuit

Posted by rjbiii on September 4, 2007

One potential basis for [dismissing an action] is a finding that a party has engaged in fraud on the court, that is, a party has sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system’s ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing party’s claim or defense. Plasse v. Tyco Electronics Corp., 2006 WL 2623441 (D. Mass. 2006) (citing Hull v. Municipality of San Juan, 356 F.3d 98, 102 (1st Cir. 2004)).
Dismissal is warranted:

  • Where a Π vigorously prosecutes a suit based upon a document he fabricated. Plasse, citing Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d. 1115, 1118 (1st Cir. 1989).
  • Where a Π deliberately conceals evidence of prior injury in order to enhance damages. Plasse, citing Hull v. Municipality of San Juan, 356 F.3d 98, 102 (1st Cir. 2004).
  • Standard is clear and convincing. Plasse, citing Hull v. Municipality of San Juan, 356 F.3d 98, 102 (1st Cir. 2004).

Posted in 1st Circuit, Case Blurbs, D. Mass., Dismissal of Case, Duty to Produce, Judge Michael A. Ponsor, Sanctions | Leave a Comment »

Case Blurb: Leon; Dismissal as a sanction, 9th Circuit

Posted by rjbiii on September 4, 2007

Dismissal is an available sanction when “a party has engaged deliberately in deceptive practices that undermine the integrity of judicial proceedings” because “courts have inherent power to dismiss an action when a party has willfully deceived the court and engaged in conduct utterly inconsistent with the orderly administration of justice.
Before imposing the harsh sanction of dismissal…the district court should consider the following factors:

  • the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation;
  • the court’s need to manage its dockets;
  • the risk of prejudice to the party seeking sanctions;
  • the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and
  • the availability of less drastic sanctions.

While the district court need not make explicit findings regarding each of the five factors, a finding of “willfulness, fault, or bad faith” is required for dismissal to be proper. The prejudice inquiry [of the five factor test] “looks to whether the spoiling party’s actions impaired the non-spoiling party’s ability to go to trial or threatened to interfere with the rightful decision of the case.
In reviewing whether the district court properly considered lesser sanctions prior to dismissing Leon’s case, [the appeals court] examines:

  • Whether the district court explicitly discussed the feasibility of less drastic sanctions and explained why such alternate sanctions would be inappropriate;
  • Whether the district court implemented alternative sanctions before ordering dismissal; and
  • Whether the district court warned the party of the possibility of dismissal before ordering dismissal.

Leon v. IDX Systems Corp., 464 F.3d 951 (9th Cir. 2006).

Posted in 9th Circuit, Case Blurbs, Dismissal of Case, Duty to Produce, Judge A. Wallace Tashima, Sanctions, Spoliation | Leave a Comment »