Case Name: OTOKI GROUP, INC., Plaintiff, Appellant, v. GIBRALTAR, P.R., INC., et al., Defendants, Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-07-23
Citations: 16 F. App'x 3
Docket Number: No. 96-2262
Parties: OTOKI GROUP, INC., Plaintiff, Appellant, v. GIBRALTAR, P.R., INC., et al., Defendants, Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 16
Pages: 3–3

Head Matter:
OTOKI GROUP, INC., Plaintiff, Appellant, v. GIBRALTAR, P.R., INC., et al., Defendants, Appellees.
No. 96-2262.
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
July 23, 2001.
Jose R. Garcia Perez, Esq. and Bufete Bennazar, C.S.P. on brief, for appellant.
Before TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge, BOWNES, Senior Circuit Judge, and LIPEZ, Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
OtoM Group, Inc. ("OtoM") appeals from the district court's order dismissing its complaint for failure to comply with a court order. OtoM argues on appeal that the district court erred in not remanding its case to the Commonwealth court in Puerto Rico, because the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over its case. OtoM further argues that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the complaint.
A district court has inherent authority to manage its docket and may impose sanctions when it finds that its process has been abused even in the absence of subject matter jurisdiction. Cf. Unanue-Casal v. Unanue-Casal, 898 F.2d 839, 841 (1st Cir. 1990) (imposing Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 sanctions after dismissing a petition for removal to federal court). Thus, we decline to decide whether the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction, because, in the present circumstances where appellant has not shown that filing a new action in Commonwealth court is barred by the statute of limitations, see 31 P.R. Laws Ann. § 5303, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing OtoM's complaint without prejudice as a sanction for OtoM's failure to comply with the district court's order that OtoM file a status report. See John's Insulation, Inc. v. L. Addison and Associates, Inc., 156 F.3d 101, 108 (1st Cir.1998). Accordingly, appellant's motion requesting adjudication on its brief without oral argument, pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 34(f) is granted and the judgment of the district court is affirmed.