Opinion ID: 31291
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Points of Appeal

Text: 11 Claimants-Appellants present two issues for appeal. First they protest the denial of their motion to dismiss, in which they argued that the Government's complaint was not pled with sufficient particularity under Rule E(2)(a). In support of this point, Claimants-Appellants charge that the district court applied the wrong standard in evaluating their motion to dismiss the complaint, and that, as a result, the district court erred in failing to dismiss the complaint. 5 12 Claimants-Appellants' second point of appeal challenges the district court's decision to grant the Government's motion for Rule 37 sanctions, a decision which resulted in the termination of their claims. 6 13 Moreover, Claimants-Appellants synthesize and construct an interesting interdependency between their two points of appeal, contending that if this Court finds in their favor regarding the motion to dismiss, the question of sanctions becomes moot. In this, however, Claimants-Appellants are mistaken. 7 We find that the two motions were not interdependent, but instead that the district court sanctioned Claimants-Appellants for behavior unrelated to the sufficiency of the complaint. 8 The district court sanctioned Claimants-Appellants for failure to comply with a court order, and Claimants-Appellants' misconduct in failing to comply with the court's order was in no way related to the sufficiency of the Government's pleading. Therefore, regardless of whether the complaint was sufficiently pled, Claimants-Appellants' noncompliance with the order remained subject to sanction. Thus, assuming the district court did not abuse its discretion in entering default judgment in the Government's favor — as we find herein that it did not — we need not reach the question of whether the Government's complaint was indeed sufficient under the standard set forth by Rule E(2)(a). Consequently, because the district court acted appropriately in entering default judgment in the Government's favor, we can afford Claimants-Appellants no relief herein.