CYRUS HASHEMI, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
CAMPAIGNER PUBLICATIONS, INC., D/B/A THE EXECUTIVE INTELLIGENCE REVIEW, NEW SOLIDARITY AND NEW SOLIDARITY INTERNATIONAL PRESS SERVICE, INC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing a complaint for repeated failures to appear for deposition testimony, especially after prior representations to the court.
The appellant repeatedly failed to appear for scheduled deposition testimony despite proper notices, confirmed agreements, and court orders. The distr…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Willful Violation Of Court Order cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This appeal arises from an order of dismissal entered by the district court pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(d).1 In its order, the district court cited repeated failures of the appellant to appear and give deposition testimony. In doing so, appellant defied proper notices, confirmed agreements and court orders.
While we agree that the sanction of dismissal is a most extreme remedy and one not to be imposed if lesser sanctions will-do, see Marshall v. Segona, 621 F. 2d 763, 766-67 (5th Cir.1980), the district court retains the discretion to dismiss a complaint where the party’s conduct amounts to “flagrant disregard and willful disobedience” of the court’s discovery orders. See Phillips Insurance Company of North America, 633 F. 2d 1165, 1167 (5th Cir.1981).
Although appellant argues that the district court should have conducted a hearing prior to dismissing the complaint, we note that the district court conducted an earlier hearing. At that time, appellant represented to the court that he would appear for a scheduled deposition. He did not appear, nor did he adequately explain his reasons for absenting himself from later scheduled depositions. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint without conducting a hearing and AFFIRM on the basis of the district court order, see 572 F.Supp. 331.
. The district court entered judgment against appellant on the dismissal order. In Czeremcha v. International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, 724 F. 2d 1552, 1554-55 (11th Cir.1984), this court held that the dismissal of a complaint "does not automatically terminate the action unless the court holds either that no amendment is possible or that the dismissal of the complaint also constitutes a dismissal of the action.” (footnote omitted). We do not read Czermecha to control a case in which the district court has entered judgment on the dismissal order.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Buchanan v. Bowman, 820 F.2d 359 (11th Cir. 1987)…ral Rules of Civil Procedure, dealing with sanctions used when a party fails to cooperate in discovery, allows the court to strike out pleadings and render default judgment against the disobedient party. In Hashemi v. Campaigner Publications, Inc., 737 F. 2d 1538 (11th Cir.1984), the court held that although the sanction of dismissal is extreme, the district court has “... the discretion to dismiss a complaint where the party’s conduct amounts to ‘flagrant disregard and willful disobedience’ of the court’s d…
-
COX v. Am. Cast Iron Pipe Co., 784 F.2d 1546 (11th Cir. 1986)…t, ought to be a last resort — ordered only if noncompliance with discovery orders is due to willful or bad faith disregard for those orders. Coors v. Movement Against Racism, 777 F. 2d 1538, 1542 (11th Cir.1985); Hashemi v. Campaigner Publications, 737 F. 2d 1538 (11th Cir.1984). On appeal we will find abuse of discretion if lesser sanctions would suffice. Ford v. Fogarty Van Lines, Inc., 780 F. 2d 1582, 1583 (11th Cir.1986). Here, the lower court made no finding of any bad faith resistance to discovery orde…
-
Phipps v. Blakeney, 8 F.3d 788 (11th Cir. 1993)…flatly threatened with dismissal, that he “had no intention” of appearing at his owm deposition or at discovery conferences. No explanation on why lesser sanctions would not have worked was necessary. See Hashemi v. Campaigner Publications, Inc., 737 F. 2d 1538 (11th Cir.1984); Navarro, 856 F. 2d at 142; Phillips v. Insurance Co. of North Amer., 633 F. 2d 1165 (5th Cir., Unit B, 1981); see also Moon v. Newsome, 863 F. 2d 835, 839 (11th Cir.1989). We know enough to judge the ease. We intend to protect the…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Czeremcha v. Int'l Ass'n OF MacHinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, 724 F.2d 1552 (11th Cir. 1984)
- Phillips v. Ins. Co. OF N. Am., 633 F.2d 1165 (5th Cir. 1981)
- United States v. Henry, 621 F.2d 763 (5th Cir. 1980)
- Marshall v. Segona, 621 F.2d 763 (5th Cir. 1980)