FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T NOVEMB ER 17, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 14 56 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 6 :0 9- cv -0 01 67 -J A-KRS JUANDRECA L. POW ELL, Pl ai nt iff - App el la nt , ve rs us DAVID A. SIEGAL , th e Fo un de r an d P res id en t o f CFI West Gate Res ort, Defen da nt , W ESTGATE RESORTS, INC., Defen da nt- App el le e.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (No ve m be r 17 , 20 11 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, ED MONDSON an d B LACK, Circ ui t Jud ge s.PER CURI AM:

Ju an dr eca L. Po well , pro ceed in g p ro se, app eal s t he di sm is sa l wi th ou t pr ejud ic e o f he r co m

pl ai nt , fil edpu rs ua ntto Tit le VII of th e Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act o f 19 64 (“ Tit le VII”), fo r fai lu re t o c om pl y with c ou rt o rd ers an d t o p ro se cu te he r cas e, Fed .R.Ci v.P . 16 (f) an d 4 1( b) . Rev ers ib le erro r ha s b een sh own ; we v acat e * an d re m an d fo r ad di ti on al pro ceed in gs . The m ag is tra te jud ge reco m m en de d t ha t Po well ’s com pl ai ntbe di sm is se d, pu rs ua ntto Ru le s 1 6( f) an d 4 1( b) , bec au se sh e fi le d h er am en de d c om pl ai ntfiv e da y s af te r th e co urt’s d ead li ne , fai le d t o app ear f ora he ari ng on he r la wy er’s m ot io n t o wi th dr aw, an d fa il edto en ga ge indi sc ov ery. The m ag is tra te , ho wev er, reco m m en de d t ha t the di sm is sa l b e wit ho utpre jud ic e “be cau se it[was ] no t ev id en t th atPo well ’s no nc om

pl ianc e was wil lfu l o r in ba d fa it h.” The d is tri ctco urt ad op te d t he m ag is tra te ’s reco m m en da ti on , anddi sm is se d t he co m pl ai ntwitho ut pr ejud ic e, pu rs ua ntto Ru le s 1 6( f) an d 4 1( b) , forfai lu re t o c om pl y with c ou rt or de rs an d fa il ur e to pro se cu te th e cas e. Whe n aco m

pl ai ntis di sm is se d wi th ou t p reju di ce, b uta st atut e o f li m it at io ns ba rs a pl ai nt iff

fro m refi li ng he r co m

pl ai nt , we rev ie w th e d is m is sa l as th ou gh it We liberally

construe pr o se plea dings. Ta nnenbaum v. United States, 148 F .3d 1262, * 1263 (11th Cir. 1998). 2was with p reju di ce. See Bo azm anv. Eco n. Lab ., Inc ., 53 7 F .2d21 0, 2 12 -1 3 (5 th

Ci r. 19 76 ). Becaus e m or e th an90 da y s p as se d a fte r th e Equ al Em pl oym en t Opp ortu ni ty Com

m is si on (“ EEOC”) is su edPo well a ri gh t t o s ue let te r an d b efo re th e d is tri ctco urt’s d is m is sa l, we wi ll ass um e th atsh e was ba rredfro m refi li ng he r co m pl ai nt . See San ti ni v. Cl ev el an d C li ni c Fl a., 23 2 F .3d82 3, 8 25 (11 thCir . 20 00 ) (s ta ti ng th atTit le VII act io ns m us t b e b ro ug htwithi n 9 0 d ay s af te r th e pl ai nt iff rece iv es no ti ce tha t the EEOC has di sm is se d t he ch arg e o f di sc riminat io n) . W e rev ie w a di sm is sa l u nd er Ru le 41 (b ) fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Grat to n v . GreatAm . Comm c’ns , 17 8 F .3d13 73 , 13 74 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). Dis mis sa l wi th pr ejud ic e und er Ru le 41 (b ) is pro pe r on ly “whe re the re i s a c le ar re co rdof ‘wil lfu l’ co nt em ptan d a n i m

pl ic itor e xp li ci t fi nd in g t ha t l es se r sa nc ti on s wo ul d n ot su ffi ce.” Id . Vio la ti on s “ cau se d b y si m pl e n eg li ge nc e, m is un de rs ta nd in g, o r in ab il it y to co m pl y ” d o n otco ns ti tu te “ wil lfu ln es s.” In re Se. Ba nk in g C or p., 2 04 F.3 d 1 32 2, 1 33 2 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 0) . The di stric t co urt d et erm in edth atitwas “ no t ev id en t tha t Po well ’s no nc om pl ia nc e was wil lfu l o r in ba d fa it h,” an d i t i s n otot he rwis e cl ear f ro m th e reco rdth athe r co nduc t was wil lfu l. Mo reo ve r, be cau se itwas n otest ab li sh edth at Po well , as o pp os edto he r lawy er, was res po ns ib le forhe r un ti m el y fil in g o r fai lu re 3to en ga ge indi sc ov ery, we are re lu ct an t t o c on cl ud e th atth e cas e warra nt edsu ch

anex tre m e sa nc ti on . See Be tty K Agen ci es , Ltd . v. M/ V Mo na da , 43 2 F .3d13 33 , 13 38 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (co nc lu di ng th atdi sm is sa l wi th pre jud ic e is oft enres erv ed fo r cas es inwhi cha pa rty -- no t the pa rty’ s l awy er -- i s cu lp ab le forth e m is co nduc t). Pe rh ap s s harin g o urrel uc ta nc e, th e d is tri ctco urt d is m is se d t he co m pl ai ntwitho utpre

jud ic e. Bu t the di st ric t co urt fa il edto reco gn iz e th at , du e to th e ru nn in g o f th e st atut e o f li m it at io ns , it s d is m is sa l was tan tam ou ntto a di sm is sa l wi th pre

jud ic e an d fa il edto co ns id er wh ethe r le ss er s an ct io ns wou ld ha ve be ensu ffi ci en t. As ares ul t, the co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n d is mis si ng th e co m pl ai ntpu rs ua ntto Ru le 41 (b ). Fo r si mil ar re as on s, we co nc lu de th atth e co urt’s d is m is sa l u nd er Ru le 16 (f) was als o a n abu se of d is cret io n. We revi ew a co urt’s i m po si ti on of s an ct io ns un de r Ru le 16 (f) fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Se e Uni te d S ta te s v . Dura n S am an ie go , 34 5 F .3d12 80 , 12 84 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). Ru le 16 (f) au th or iz es a co urt t o i m po se sa nc ti on s, i nc lu di ng di sm is sa l u nd er Ru le 37 (b )(2 )(A)(v ), if apa rty fail s t o o be y a pr etria l o rd er. Fed .R.Ci v.P . 16 (f)(1 ). Suc h s an ct io ns are “ de si gn edto pu ni sh la wy ers an d p art ie s fo r co nduc t wh ic h unr eas on ab ly del ay s o r ot he rwis e in te rfer es with t he ex pe di ti ou s m an ag em en t o f tr ia l p rep arat io n.” Dura n S am an ie go , 34 5 F.3 d a t 1 28 4. “ [D]ist ric t co urts ha ve di sc ret io n t o d eci de if t he re i s a p at te rnof 4de la y

or ade li be rat e ref

us al to co m

pl y with c ou rt o rd ers or d ire ct io ns th atjus ti fie s a sa nc ti on .” Id . Dismiss al un de r Ru le 37 , ho wev er, i s “ ap pr op ria te on ly as a la st res ort, wh enles s dras ti c sa nc ti on s wo ul d n oten su re co m pl ia nc e wit h t he co urt’s or de rs .” Mal au te a v . Suz uk i M ot or Co ., 98 7 F .2d15 36 , 15 42 (11 th Cir . 19 93 ). Not hi ng ev id en ces th atPo well ’s con du ctwas d el ib erat e, co ns ti tu te d a pa tt ernof d el ay , or u nr eas on ab ly del ay edth e p ro ceed in gs . Her am en de d co m pl ai nt-- fi le d b y

he r la wy er -- was fil edon ly five da y s l at e; an d d es pi te Po well ’s fai lu re t o app ear, the co urt p ro ceed edwith t he he ari ng on he r la wy er’s m ot io n t o wi th dr aw. Becaus e th e co urt fa il edto co ns id er wh ethe r Po well wou ld be ba rredfro m

refi li ng he r co m

pl ai ntan d wh ethe r ot he r le ss dra st ic san ct io ns wou ldha ve be enad equa te , itab us edit s d is cret io n i n d is m is si ng th e co m pl ai nt . W e v acat e an d re m an d t o t he di st ric t co urt t o d et erm in e whe th er Po well is in factbarredfro m

refi li ng he r co m

pl ai ntan d, i n t he li gh t o f th atin fo rm at io n, whe th er l es se r sa nc ti on s wo ul d s uf fic e. VACATED AN D REMANDED.

5