Opinion ID: 871238
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Contumacious conduct

Text: In addition to deliberate delay by the plaintiff and actual prejudice to the defendant, contumacious conduct also warrants dismissal of an action with prejudice. Shasteen, 79 Hawai`i at 108, 899 P.2d at 391. Contumacious conduct has been defined by this court as [w]illfully stubborn and disobedient conduct. Id. at 107 n. 7., 899 P.2d at 391 n. 7 (citing Black's Law Dictionary 330 (6th ed.1990)). [12] In this case, Blaisdell did not refuse compliance with a court order, nor was he issued one. Without evidence that Blaisdell conducted himself in a willfully defiant manner, his actions did not amount to what this court considers contumacious conduct. In summary, the record does not indicate: (1) a deliberate attempt by Blaisdell to delay the prosecution of this case; (2) that the defendants suffered actual prejudice; or (3) that Blaisdell's actions rose to the level of contumacious conduct. Absent these circumstances, the circuit court should have considered and explained why a lesser sanction, such as a dismissal without prejudice, was insufficient to serve the interests of justice. See Schilling, 805 F.2d at 275. Here, the circuit court did not provide any such explanation. Furthermore, a dismissal with prejudice is inconsistent with this court's policy of affording litigants the opportunity to have their cases heard on the merits, where possible[.] Housing Fin. & Dev. Corp. v. Ferguson, 91 Hawai`i 81, 85-86, 979 P.2d 1107, 1111-12 (1999) (quoting Bettencourt v. Bettencourt, 80 Hawai`i 225, 230, 909 P.2d 553, 558 (1995)). Based on the foregoing, the circuit court abused its discretion when it dismissed Blaisdell's complaint with prejudice.