HUGH D. MINGO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
SUGAR CANE GROWERS CO-OP OF FLORIDA A/K/A "SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE OF FLORIDA," DEFENDANT-APPELLEE, CROSS-APPELLANT
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 dismissal for want of prosecution requires a finding that lesser sanctions would not suffice.
The plaintiff appealed an order dismissing his action with prejudice for want of prosecution. The trial court expressed frustration with the delay and…
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 Clear Record Of Delay cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff appeals the district court’s order dismissing his action, with prejudice, for want of prosecution. We vacate the order and remand the cause to the trial court.
The district court possesses the inherent power to police its docket. Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 1388, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962). Incident to this power, the judge may impose formal sanctions upon dilatory litigants. The sanctions imposed can range from a simple reprimand to an order dismissing the action with or without prejudice.
Our cases announce the rule, however, that dismissal is warranted only upon a “clear record of delay or willful contempt and a finding that lesser sanctions would not suffice.” Goforth v. Owens, 766 F. 2d 1533, 1535 (11th Cir.1985) (emphasis supplied); Jones v. Graham, 709 F. 2d 1457, 1458 (11th Cir.1983); Hildebrand v. Honeywell, Inc., 622 F. 2d 179, 181 (5th Cir.1980).1 Although we occasionally have found implicit in an order the conclusion that “lesser sanctions would not suffice” (see Goforth, 766 F. 2d at 1535), we have never suggested that the district court need not make that finding, which is essential before a party can be penalized for his attorney’s misconduct. Hildebrand, 622 F. 2d at 181. See Cohen v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 782 F. 2d 923, 925 (11th Cir.1986) (trial court abused discretion by ordering dismissal without considering lesser sanctions); Carter v. United States, 780 F. 2d 925, 928 (11th Cir.1986) (same; dicta); also, Jones v. Bowen, 790 F. 2d 1550, 1553 (11th Cir.1986) (cause remanded). In Goforth, any order other than dismissal would have “greatly prejudiced” the defendants. Id., 766 F. 2d at 1535; compare Jones v. Graham, 709 F. 2d at 1461-62 (district judge found that great prejudice to defendants could only be cured by dismissal).
In the instant case, the trial court did not make a finding concerning the effi cacy of sanctions less severe than dismissal. The district court did mention that earlier in the litigation the cause had come close to dismissal; in fact, the court had warned plaintiff on at least two prior occasions that further delay might yield dismissal. In its order finally disposing of the action, the court concluded that dismissal was warranted because “it would be unfair to defendant to allow this unhappy litigation to drag on longer than it already has,” and further, that “the circumstances of this case cry out for such a ‘just, speedy, and inexpensive determination.’" We understand the district judge’s frustration. Because the sanction of dismissal with prejudice is so unsparing, however, we hesitate to infer from this language that the trial court reflected upon the wide range of sanctions at its disposal and concluded that none save dismissal would spur this litigation to its just completion. We therefore VACATE the order and REMAND the cause for the district court’s further consideration.2
. See Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F. 2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir.1981) (in banc). The Eleventh Circuit, sitting in banc, adopted as binding precedent all decisions rendered prior to October 1, 1981, by the former Fifth Circuit.
. Because we remand the cause, defendant’s cross-appeal for fees and expenses is not ripe for our determination.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V Monada, 432 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir. 2005)…t); and (2) the district court specifically finds that lesser sanctions would not suffice.” World Thrust Films, 41 F. 3d at 1456; accord Gratton v. Great Am. Commc’ns., 178 F. 3d 1373, 1374 (11th Cir.1999); Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Coop. of Fla., 864 F. 2d 101, 102 (11th Cir.1989); Cohen v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 782 F. 2d 923, 924-25 (11th Cir.1986); Goforth, 766 F. 2d at 1535; Jones v. Graham, 709 F. 2d 1457, 1458 (11th Cir.1983); Gonzalez, 610 F. 2d at 247; Hildebrand, 622 F. 2d at 181; Boazman v…1 / 3
-
Kilgo v. Ricks, 983 F.2d 189 (11th Cir. 1993)…d such a finding, as where lesser sanctions would have “greatly prejudiced” defendants, Goforth v. Owens, 766 F. 2d at 1535, it has “never suggested that the district court need not make that finding....” Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-op. of Fla., 864 F. 2d 101, 102 (11th Cir.1989). We see no reason to believe that a lesser sanction — such as a reprimand directed to Kil-go’s current address — would not suffice in this case, if sanctions are called for at all. Consequently, we vacate the order dismissing…
-
World Thrust Films, Inc. v. Int'l Fam. Ent., Inc., 41 F.3d 1454 (11th Cir. 1995)…that ‘lesser sanctions would not suffice’, we have never suggested that the district court need not make that finding, which is essential before a party can be penalized for his attorney’s misconduct.” Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-op of Florida, 864 F. 2d 101, 102 (11th Cir.1989) (citations omitted). This court has only inferred such a finding “where lesser sanctions would have ‘greatly prejudiced’ defendants.” Kilgo, 983 F. 2d at 193 (quoting Goforth v. Owens, 766 F. 2d 1533, 1535 (11th Cir.1985)). B…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bonner v. City OF Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981)
- Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (U.S. 1962)
- Goforth v. Roger Douglas Owens, M.D., 766 F.2d 1533 (11th Cir. 1985)
- Barbara Hildebrand and husband v. Honeywell, Inc., 622 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1980)
- Gwendola M. Jones v. Graham, 709 F.2d 1457 (11th Cir. 1983)
- Cohen v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 782 F.2d 923 (11th Cir. 1986)
- Rodgers v. Bowen, 790 F.2d 1550 (11th Cir. 1986)
- Carter v. United States, 780 F.2d 925 (11th Cir. 1986)