Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03095/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03095-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

• 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

JAMES R. BETTS, doing business as ) 

Chapparal Enterprises, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

. FILED 

United S;ares Court of Appeals 

f enth Cfrruit 

OCT 2 }J 1990 

.ROBERT L.1-IOECK.ER 

Clerk 

vs. ) 

) 

AGRI-TECH SERVICES, INC., ) 

No. 90-3095 

(D.C. No. 87-4110-R) 

(D. Kan.) 

) 

Defendant-Appellee. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, BALDOCK and EBEL, Circuit Judges.** 

Plaintiff-appellant James R. Betts appeals prose from the 

dismissal with prejudice of his breach of contract action against 

Agri-Tech Services. The court found that Betts repeatedly refused 

to comply with its discovery orders and failed to show up for 

trial and consequently granted defendant's motion to dismiss with 

prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b) & 4l(b). 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

** After exam1n1ng the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause therefore is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 90-3095 Document: 010110064917 Date Filed: 10/29/1990 Page: 1 
.. 

We recognize that dismissal with prejudice is a drastic 

sanction. Ocelot Oil Corp. v. Sparrow Indus., 847 F.2d 1458, 1464 

(10th Cir. 1988). Nevertheless, this draconian sanction is 

warranted when a party neglects his case or refuses to obey court 

orders. Id. In the instant case, Betts ignored repeated warnings 

and directions by the district court in blatant disregard of the 

court's authority. Moreover, after unsuccessfully seeking a 

continuance, he failed to show up for trial. Given this conduct, 

we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in 

dismissing Betts's action with prejudice. We therefore affirm 

because the reasons set forth by the district court in its order 

attached hereto convince us that the district court acted within 

its discretion. Betts v. Tech Serv., No. 87-4110-R, unpub. ------------ order (D. Kan. Feb. 28, 1990). 

-2-

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-3095 Document: 010110064917 Date Filed: 10/29/1990 Page: 2 
AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case ID 

J1{11iteo ~tai£s ~ is±rict illourt 

DISTRICT OF ---=Kc:..:A..c..;N=S=Ac...c.=.S ___________ _ 

JAMES R. BETTS d/b/a 

CHAPARRAL ENTERPRISES, LTD., 

Plaintiff, 

V. 

AGRI-TECH SERVICES, INC., 

Defendant. 

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE 

CASE NUMBER: 87-4110-R 

O Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury_ The issues have been tried and the jury has rendered 

its verdict. 

considered ~ Decision by Court. This action came){a(~~M'9 before the Court. The issues have beenic~li~lt and a 

decision has been rendered. 

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this action be hereby dismissed with 

prejudice pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b) and 4l(b). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for mistrial be 

hereby denied. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff take nothing, that the 

action be dismissed on the merits, and that the defendant Agri-Tech 

Services, Inc. recover of the plaintiff James R. Betts, d/b/a I...._ 

/ 

Chaparral Enterprises, Ltd., its costs of action ... 

(EOD 02/28/90) 

February 28, 1990 

Date 

Wijt~~ 

FEB 2 8 i9·SJ 

RAL-~H~1 L. De4Y;CH, Clerk · ' ,1·· ·, ./"il Ceputy By .......... --:... ••. .:-VRALPH L. DeLOACH 

Clerk 

. I /' 7 ·. '- 1--i /·' ,, ) / I l / ,, ( . ( 

(By) Deputy Clerk -J' 

Appellate Case: 90-3095 Document: 010110064917 Date Filed: 10/29/1990 Page: 3 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS 

JAMES R. BETTS d/b/a 

CHAPARRAL ENTERPRISES, LTD., 

Plaintiff, 

n•--

1..,· •• \ ' ~ .. -1 - -:-1 D-fO . ... f?.\-- -~-

FILED 

U.S. DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF KANSAS 

FEB 28 4 3~ PH '9D 

~LF:J I. :Ei.OACH 

' J \ ~ u: :~ ' 

BY '. ) ) ~..Q·WEPUTY 

Ar TOPEi\A, KS. 

vs. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 87-4110-R 

AGRI-TECH SERVICES, INC., 

Defendant. ___________________ ) 

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 

The trial of this case was scheduled to begin on February 27, 

1990. Plaintiff failed to appear. At that time, defendant 

requested that the court grant its pending motion to dismiss. In 

this motion, defendant seeks dismissal pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 

37(b) for plaintiff's failure to comply with the court's discovery 

orders. Defendant also requested that the court dismiss this 

action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) for lack of prosecution. The 

court determined that dismissal was appropriate for both reasons 

and dismissed this action with prejudice. The purpose of this 

{_, 

order is to memorialize the court's ruling and provide_) the 

authority for the court's decision. 

In the order of January 22, 1990, the court directed the 

plaintiff to provide certain tape recordings to the defendant 

within fifteen days. The defendant then filed a motion to dismiss 

when the plaintiff failed to provide the tape recordings. 

Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's order 

of January 22, 1990. On February 16, 1990, the court held a 

Appellate Case: 90-3095 Document: 010110064917 Date Filed: 10/29/1990 Page: 4 
telephone conference to consider plaintiff's motion for 

reconsideration. The court denied the motion and ordered the 

plaintiff to provide the tape recordings to the defendant within 

five days. On February 23, 1990, defendant, through its counsel, 

filed an affidavit indicating that the five-day deadline 

established in the telephone conference for production of the tapes 

had expired and the plaintiff had not produced the tapes. 

The court may impose a number of sanctions, including 

dismissal, when a party fails to obey a discovery order. 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b). Dismissal is a drastic ' sanction and one that 

must be grounded in some fault on the part of or binding upon the 

party. Ocelot Oil Corp. v. Sparrow Industries, 847 F.2d 1458, 1464 

(10th Cir. 1988). In determining whether to impose the sanction 

of dismissal, the court must consider the following factors: (1) 

the degree of actual prejudice to the defendant; (2) the amount of 

interference with the judicial process; and (3) the culpability of 

the litigant. Meade v. Grubbs, 841 F.2d 1512, 1521 n. 7 (10th Cir. 

1988) . "Only when the aggravating factors outweigh the judicial 

system's strong predisposition to resolve cases on the merits ) 

. is dismissal an appropriate sanction." Id. 

Under the circumstances of this case, ~he court finds that 

dismissal with prejudice is an appropriate sanction. Plaintiff has 

willfully refused to comply with the orders of the court. This 

refusal has caused obvious prejudice to the defendant since the 

defendant will not be able to examine the tape recordings prior to 

trial. The court has provided the plaintiff with additional time 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-3095 Document: 010110064917 Date Filed: 10/29/1990 Page: 5 
• I 

to produce the recordings, and he has failed to do so. The court 

finds that dismissal with prejudice is the only appropriate 

sanction. 

In addition, the court shall dismiss this action for 

plaintiff's lack of prosecution. Plaintiff was aware of the trial 

date and failed to appear. This conduct also requires dismissal 

with prejudice pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4l(b). Sweeney v. 

Anderson, 129 F.2d 756, 758 (10th Cir. 1942). Also see Syntex 

Ophthalmics. Inc. v. Novicky, 795 F.2d 983 (Fed.Cir. 1986); Ali v. 

A & G Co., Inc., 542 F.2d 595 (2d Cir . . 1976); Pack v. South 

Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Dept., 92 F.R.D. 22 (D.S.C. 

1981). Thus, this action is hereby dismissed with prejudice 

pursuant to Rules 37(b) and 4l(b). 

Finally, the court notes that plaintiff has filed a motion for 

mistrial. The court shall construe this as a motion for 

reconsideration of the ruling3 made by the court during the 

telephone conference of February 16, 1990. This motion is similar 

to previous materials filed by the plaintiff. It contains a 

variety of vacuous contentions. Plaintiff asserts that the dQurt 

J 

and the defendant have entered into . some sort of conspiracy to 

deprive him of his rights. He further alleges that the court's 

rulings were biased, discriminatory and prejudicial. 

The court finds no merit to plaintiff's inane legal arguments 

and empty factual allegations. This motion shall be denied. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action be hereby dismissed 

with prejudice pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b) and 4l(b). 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-3095 Document: 010110064917 Date Filed: 10/29/1990 Page: 6 
. . . 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for mistrial be 

hereby denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated this Qg day of February, 1990 at Topeka, Kansas. 

4 

Appellate Case: 90-3095 Document: 010110064917 Date Filed: 10/29/1990 Page: 7