Opinion ID: 2994334
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dismissal and Motion to Reconsider

Text: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f), which incorporates Rule 37(b)(2)(C), allows a district court to dismiss an action for failure of a party to attend a pre-trial conference. The court has this power in order to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases. Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962). However, the court shall not dismiss a case without due warning to the plaintiff’s counsel. Ball v. City of Chicago, 2 F.3d 752, 755 (7th Cir. 1993). Due warning does not require the judge to notify the plaintiff himself, as distinct from his lawyer, before dismissing. Id. at 756. Dismissal should be used only in extreme situations, when there is a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct, or when other less drastic sanctions have proven unavailable. Kruger v. Apfel, No. 98-4193, 2000 WL 562804, at  (7th Cir. May 10, 2000) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Spain argues that the district court erred both in dismissing his case and in denying his motion to reconsider. We apply the abuse of discretion standard when reviewing an order to dismiss. National Hockey League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club Inc., 427 U.S. 639, 642 (1976). We also apply abuse of discretion when reviewing the denial of a Rule 59 motion to amend the judgment. Britton v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., 127 F.3d 616, 618 (7th Cir. 1997). In the present case, Mr. Vickers, by not attending the jury instruction conference, violated Rule 16(f). In his brief, Mr. Vickers claims that his failure to attend was the district court’s fault, since the written notice for the conference arrived late. While the order did indeed arrive late, Mr. Vickers was present at the previous conference where the court announced on the record the time of the jury instruction conference as 9:00 a.m. The fact Mr. Vickers did show up for the conference on that day, shows that he knew of the hearing and was not relying solely on written notice. Since the district court later granted the motion to reconsider upon three conditions, the court did not accord favorable treatment to appellee as Mr. Vickers contends. Mr. Vickers received due warning that the case would be dismissed at the reconsideration hearing. The district court, citing the difficult position of Mr. Spain, who was not at fault, allowed the case to be reinstated provided Mr. Vickers comply with the three conditions within five working days. While the case was still technically dismissed, the court stated that it would reinstate the case provided Mr. Vickers promptly complied with the conditions. Therefore, Mr. Vickers had due warning before the case was finally dismissed. Not only did Mr. Vickers receive this warning, but so did Mr. Spain, who was present for the reconsideration hearing. At the hearing, Mr. Vickers, in the presence of his client, indicated his reluctance to comply with the three conditions. The district court received Mr. Vickers’s letter to Mr. Spain on July 27, 1998, three days after the hearing on the motion to reconsider. In the letter Mr. Vickers told his client that he would not comply with the three conditions. The court, reasonably taking this letter as Mr. Vickers’s failure to comply, ordered Mr. Vickers to show cause why he should not be held in contempt and refused to reinstate the case. In ordering both the original dismissal and in conditionally granting the motion to reconsider, the court cited several instances of delay committed by Mr. Vickers throughout the case. These included failure of Vickers & Associates to provide initial disclosures, failure to answer interrogatories, failure to pay the previously ordered $285 sanction for failing to make initial disclosures, and lack of preparation at the May 28 pre-trial conference. Finally, there was the failure of Mr. Vickers to attend the June 3 jury instruction conference. These facts support a finding of a clear record of delay. Kruger, 2000 WL 562804, at . Also the fact that Mr. Vickers did not pay the previous sanction for a year and a half gave the court grounds to believe further monetary sanctions would be ineffective, particularly when Mr. Vickers informed his client and the court that he would not comply with the conditions. While going from a sanction of $285 to dismissal may seem an abrupt increase in severity, Mr. Spain does not claim he was lulled into a false sense of security. Furthermore, at the reconsideration hearing, the court reiterated crystalline warnings of the imminent dismissal of this case. Ball, 2 F.3d at 757. This was enough for Mr. Spain to be aware dismissal was a real possibility. The district court provided the required warning to both the plaintiff and his counsel. It was after this warning that Mr. Vickers informed the court he would not comply with the conditions for reinstatement. This warning, combined with the earlier delays and the ineffectiveness of previous sanctions, are sufficient to support a finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case or in denying the motion to amend judgment.