Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-05151/USCOURTS-ca10-90-05151-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 422
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Appeals Rule 28 USC 158
Cause of Action: 

---

' 

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United Scates Court of Appeals Tenth Ci!:"cuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

In re: WESLEY R. MCKINNEY, ) 

) 

Debtor. ) 

------------------------------) WESLEY R. MCKINNEY, ) 

) 

Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

B. P. LOUGHRIDGE, ) 

) 

Appellee. ) 

) 

MAR 6 1091 

~OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-5151 

(D.C. No. 89-C-741-B) 

( N. D. Okla. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MCKAY, McWILLIAMS, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining 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. Therefore, the case is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

The appellant, Wesley R. McKinney, appeals from the district 

court's dismissal of his appeal from a default judgment entered 

against him by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern 

District of Oklahoma in favor of the appellee, B. P. Loughridge. 

* 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. 

Appellate Case: 90-5151 Document: 010110031070 Date Filed: 03/06/1991 Page: 1 
McKinney raises one issue for this court to consider: whether a 

bankruptcy court's entry of a default judgment against a prose 

debtor to punish him under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f) for failing to 

attend a pretrial conference constitutes an abuse of discretion 

where there is no evidence that the debtor was aware of the 

consequences of his failure to attend the pretrial conference. We 

hold that the action taken by the bankruptcy court does not 

constitute an abuse of discretion. Therefore, we affirm the 

district court's dismissal of McKinney's appeal. 

FACTS 

In October, 1984, Loughridge attempted to collect on a 

promissory note against McKinney. As a result on January 10, 

1985, McKinney was forced into involuntary bankruptcy by his 

creditors. Six months later McKinney was convicted1 and sentenced 

to serve two consecutive five-year prison terms in Lompoc. 

Apparently the bankruptcy process proceeded, and on April 18, 

1986, Loughridge filed an adversary proceeding objecting to the 

discharge of McKinney's debt to Loughridge under 11 u.s.c. 

§ 523(a)(2) alleging fraud. On April 22, 1988, the bankruptcy 

court postponed the adversary proceeding pending McKinney's 

release from Lompoc. 

On April 1, 1989, McKinney was released from Lompoc. On May 

4, 1989, the bankruptcy court entered an amended scheduling order 

setting the trial for September 18, 1989. The bankruptcy court 

set the pretrial conference for August 31, 1989. On July 10, 

1 The record does not indicate the offense(s) for which McKinney 

was charged and convicted. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-5151 Document: 010110031070 Date Filed: 03/06/1991 Page: 2 
1989, McKinney was mailed a copy of an order that extended the 

cutoff date for discovery. The order reaffirmed the August 31, 

1988 date for the pretrial conference. Shortly thereafter, 

McKinney's attorney withdrew from the case. Before he withdrew, 

McKinney's counsel reminded him about the pretrial conference. On 

August 22, 1989, Loughridge's counsel sent McKinney a proposed 

pretrial order, which contained a reminder that the pretrial 

conference was scheduled for August 31, 1989. 

McKinney never appeared for the pretrial conference. As a 

result, the bankruptcy court entered a default judgment against 

McKinney on the grounds that McKinney willfully chose not to 

attend the pretrial conference. McKinney appealed the bankruptcy 

court's entry of a default judgment against him to the United 

States District Court for the Northern District Court of Oklahoma. 

McKinney admitted that he knew that the pretrial conference was 

scheduled on August 31, 1989. McKinney claimed, however, that he 

did not realize the pretrial conference's significance, nor was he 

aware of the potential consequences for missing the conference. 

The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision 

holding that its decision to enter a default judgment against 

McKinney did not constitute an abuse of discretion. McKinney now 

appeals to this court the district court's decision to affirm the 

bankruptcy court's decision. 

ANALYSIS 

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f), the bankruptcy court is entitled 

to enter sanctions against a party who fails to abide by the 

court's scheduling order. The court "may make such orders with 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-5151 Document: 010110031070 Date Filed: 03/06/1991 Page: 3 
regard thereto as are just, and among others any of the orders 

provided in Rule 37(b) (2) (B), (C), (D)." Rule 37(b) (2) (B)-(D) 

provides a list of sanctions the court can impose in order to 

punish parties who violate its orders including striking portions 

of the offending party's pleadings, refusing to allow the 

offending party to introduce evidence, dismissing the action, and 

rendering a judgment by default against the offending party. 

Furthermore, under Rule 16(f), the court can require the offending 

party to pay the other party's expenses. 

We review the bankruptcy court's decision to enter a default 

judgment against McKinney under the abuse of discretion standard. 

Ikerd v. Lacy, 852 F.2d 1256, 1258 (10th Cir. 1988). The Supreme 

Court has admonished "[t]he question, of course, is not whether 

the Court of Appeals, would as an original matter have 

[entered a default judgment] ... ; it is whether the District 

Court abused its discretion in so doing." National Hockey League 

v. Metropolitan Hockey Club, 427 U.S. 639, 642 (1976). We will 

not find an abuse of discretion "unless we have a definite and 

firm conviction that the court below committed a clear error of 

judgment in the conclusion it reached upon a weighing of the 

relevant factors." United States v. Sumitomo Marine and Fire Ins. 

Co., 617 F.2d 1365, 1369 (9th Cir. 1980) (quotations omitted). 

McKinney admits that he wilfully failed to appear at the 

pretrial conference. Further, as the district court and the 

bankruptcy court noted below, McKinney had a history of delays in 

his favor. Although we believe that the better practice would be 

for bankruptcy courts to warn prose litigants of the consequences 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-5151 Document: 010110031070 Date Filed: 03/06/1991 Page: 4 
of failing to obey court orders, given the heavy burden needed to 

show an abuse of discretion, we are unable to conclude that the 

bankruptcy judge abused his discretion in entering a default 

against McKinney. 

AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

-5-

Appellate Case: 90-5151 Document: 010110031070 Date Filed: 03/06/1991 Page: 5