Opinion ID: 3036297
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Whether the conduct of the party or the

Text: attorney was willful or in bad faith. The District Court found that Briscoe was “willful” because he did not attend the conference despite the court’s express warning that it could dismiss his claims. Although the District Court correctly described the law, the record does not support its finding that Briscoe was willful because it did not provide Briscoe with an opportunity to explain the reason he failed to attend the hearing. Under this factor, the District Court must consider whether the conduct was “the type of willful or contumacious behavior which was characterized as flagrant bad faith.” Adams, 29 F.3d at 875 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Generally, “[w]illfulness involves intentional or self-serving behavior.” Id. If the conduct is merely negligent or inadvertent, we will not call the conduct “contumacious.” See Poulis, 747 F.2d at 868-69 (finding that plaintiff’s counsel’s behavior was not contumacious because, although he had missed deadlines, there was no suggestion that his delays were for any reason other than his and his wife’s poor health); see also Emerson, 296 F.3d at 191 (finding bad faith because the conduct went beyond mere negligence). Therefore, the District Court was correct in finding that, where a plaintiff refuses to attend a final pretrial conference in an attempt to delay the trial, his refusal would be “willful.” However, the record is insufficient to support the District Court’s finding that Briscoe refused to attend the pretrial conference. As discussed in the three preceding factors, the 19 District Court should have provided Briscoe with a full and fair opportunity to present the reasons he did not attend the conference prior to finding that he “refused” to attend.5 Because it did not, the record is insufficient to support its finding that Briscoe willfully refused to attend the conference with the purpose to delay the proceedings.