Case Name: The NOSTALGIA NETWORK, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Merrick Scott RAYLE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-03-15
Citations: 11 F. App'x 720
Docket Number: No. 99-56369; D.C. CV-94-06747-RMT
Parties: The NOSTALGIA NETWORK, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Merrick Scott RAYLE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before FERGUSON, TASHIMA, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 11
Pages: 720–721

Head Matter:
The NOSTALGIA NETWORK, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Merrick Scott RAYLE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 99-56369.
D.C. CV-94-06747-RMT.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 14, 2001.
Decided March 15, 2001.
As Corrected May 2, 2001.
Before FERGUSON, TASHIMA, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2)

Opinion:
ORDER
The district judge ordered that the defendant's answer be stricken and default entered because the defendant failed to appear for a settlement conference and then did not respond to an order to show cause in writing why his answer should not be stricken and default entered. The District Court then ordered a default judgment against the defendant.
A court may not strike an answer and issue a default judgment to punish a contempt of court unrelated to the merits of the case. See Hovey v. Elliot, 167 U.S. 409, 413-14, 17 S.Ct. 841, 42 L.Ed. 215 (1897); Phoceene Sous-Marine, S.A. v. U.S. Phosmarine, Inc., 682 F.2d 802, 806 (9th Cir.1982). However, when the misconduct of a party interferes with the production of evidence, default judgment is proper. Hammond Packing Co. v. Arkansas, 212 U.S. 322, 350-51, 29 S.Ct. 370, 53 L.Ed. 530 (1909).
The case is remanded to the District Court to reevaluate its order and determine whether or not the defendant acted in a manner which permits a default judgment.
All further appeals in this case will be assigned to this panel for determination.
Remanded for further proceedings.
. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.