Opinion ID: 497041
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Consideration of Less Drastic Alternatives

Text: 18 Malone argues that in ordering dismissal the district court did not consider the feasibility of alternatives to dismissal. We disagree. 19 The district court abuses its discretion if it imposes a sanction of dismissal without first considering the impact of the sanction and the adequacy of less drastic sanctions. United States v. National Medical Enterprises, Inc., 792 F.2d 906, 912 (9th Cir.1986). 1 Our case law reveals that the following factors are of particular relevance in determining whether a district court has considered alternatives to dismissal: (1) Did the court explicitly discuss the feasibility of less drastic sanctions and explain why alternative sanctions would be inadequate? (2) Did the court implement alternative methods of sanctioning or curing the malfeasance before ordering dismissal? (3) Did the court warn the plaintiff of the possibility of dismissal before actually ordering dismissal? 20 The district court did not explicitly discuss the feasibility of alternatives to dismissal. The Government argues that the court did explicitly consider alternatives, citing to part of the transcript of the hearing regarding whether to dismiss the case. In the passage cited by the Government, the district court discussed counsel's excuse that Malone was unable to afford the extensive preparation necessary to comply with the pretrial order. The court refused to accept this excuse, stating that the alternative suggested by counsel would be to allow every indigent plaintiff to conduct[ ] a fishing expedition at trial. This discussion of an alternative by the court is not a discussion of an alternative to dismissal. Rather, it is a justification for rejecting the proffered excuse for noncompliance with the pretrial order. 21 We have indicated a preference for explicit discussion by the district court of the feasibility of alternatives when ordering dismissal. See, e.g., People v. Reyes, 800 F.2d 940, 944 (9th Cir.1986); Rubin, 769 F.2d at 617. However, we have never held that explicit discussion of alternatives is necessary for an order of dismissal to be upheld. Under the egregious circumstances present here, where the plaintiff has purposefully and defiantly violated a court order, it is unnecessary (although still helpful) for a district court to discuss why alternatives to dismissal are infeasible. See G-K Properties v. Redevelopment Agency, 577 F.2d 645, 647-48 (9th Cir.1978). 22 Moreover, explicit discussion of alternatives is unnecessary if the district court actually tries alternatives before employing the ultimate sanction of dismissal. See Callip v. Harris County Child Welfare Department, 757 F.2d 1513, 1522 (5th Cir.1985); United Artists Corp. v. La Cage Aux Folles, Inc., 771 F.2d 1265, 1271 (9th Cir.1985); Nevijel v. North Coast Life Insurance Co., 651 F.2d 671, 674 (9th Cir.1981); Huey v. Teledyne, Inc., 608 F.2d 1234, 1238 (9th Cir.1979); Von Poppenheim v. Portland Boxing & Wrestling Commission, 442 F.2d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir.1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1039, 92 S.Ct. 715, 30 L.Ed.2d 731 (1972). We conclude that the district court's November 16, 1984, declaration of mistrial and subsequent pretrial order constituted attempts at less drastic alternatives to dismissal. The mistrial, pretrial order, and order of dismissal were all instituted in response to the lack of preparation on the part of Malone and her counsel. The district court's imposition of less drastic measures for lack of preparation during the aborted first trial is sufficient indication to us that alternatives were considered prior to dismissal of Malone's case for lack of preparation. See Callip, 757 F.2d at 1522. 23 Finally, the case law suggests that warning a plaintiff that failure to obey a court order will result in dismissal can suffice to meet the consideration of alternatives requirement. See Buss v. Western Airlines, Inc., 738 F.2d 1053, 1054 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1192, 105 S.Ct. 968, 83 L.Ed.2d 972 (1985); Titus v. Mercedes Benz of North America, 695 F.2d 746, 749 n. 6 (3d Cir.1982) (listing warning as alternative sanction). Failure to warn has frequently been a contributing factor in our decisions to reverse orders of dismissal. See, e.g., Hamilton, 811 F.2d at 500; National Medical Enterprises, 792 F.2d at 913; Rubin, 769 F.2d at 617; Mir v. Fosburg, 706 F.2d 916, 919 (9th Cir.1983); Tolbert v.Leighton, 623 F.2d 585, 587 (9th Cir.1980). Although in the instant case the district court did not explicitly warn Malone that dismissal would follow violation of the pretrial order, the court made it clear that no continuances would be accepted. Moreover, we find a warning to be unnecessary here. A plaintiff can hardly be surprised by a harsh sanction in response to willful violation of a pretrial order. Rules 16(f) and 41(b) explicitly state that dismissal may be ordered for violation of a court order. 24 Under the circumstances in this case, the district court satisfied the consideration of alternatives requirement by implementing alternative measures prior to ordering dismissal for willful failure to prepare for trial. We conclude that, pursuant to the five dismissal factors, the district court's order of dismissal was not an abuse of discretion. 2