Court Opinion

ID: 2963961
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:18:10.436603+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:10:43.644964
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________
        No. 95-1981

                                 CHUANG INVESTMENTS,

                  Plaintiff and Defendant-in-Counterclaim-Appellant,

                                          v.

                                  EAGLE INNS, INC.,
                           d/b/a WORCESTER HOWARD INN HOTEL
                            AND COLLEGE SQUARE APARTMENTS,
                                    Defendant, and

                          MARRIOTT FAMILY RESTAURANTS, INC.,
                  Defendant and Plaintiff-in-Counterclaim-Appellee,

                                          v.
                             Y.C. HOSPITALITY, INC., and
                                   YING C. CHUANG,

                       Defendants-in-Counterclaim-Appellants. 

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                   [Hon. Nathaniel M. Gorton, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________
                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Boudin, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________

                            Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                    ____________________

                              and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________
                                 ____________________

            Robert D. Cohan with  whom James D. Gotz  and Cohan & Rasnick were
            _______________            _____________      _______________
        on briefs for appellants.
            John  O. Mirick with  whom Mirick,  O'Connell, De  Mallie & Lougee
            _______________            _______________________________________
        was on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________
                                    April 9, 1996
                                 ____________________

                 Per  Curiam.   In March  1993, Chuang  Investments, Inc.
                 ___________

            filed  suit   in   state  court   against   Marriott   Family

            Restaurants,  Inc., alleging  that  Marriott had  violated  a

            lease agreement.   Marriott removed the case  to the district

            court  and counterclaimed  against Chuang  Investments, Inc.,

            Y.C. Hospitality, Inc., and  Dr. Ying C. Chuang.   It appears

            that Dr.  Chuang controls  Chuang Investments, Inc.  and that

            Y.C.  Hospitality, Inc. is  now dissolved.   Dr.  Chuang then

            asserted his own claim against Marriott.

                 In October 1993, the  district court entered a discovery

            order  requiring that  discovery be  completed by  July 1994.

            Marriott filed deposition notices  in February 1994  directed

            to Dr.  Chuang and  the  Chuang companies,  which Dr.  Chuang

            ignored.   In April 1994, Marriott  filed interrogatories and

            document requests,  which also went unanswered,  and a motion

            to compel discovery based on the deposition notices.

                 Dr.  Chuang then wrote a letter dated April 17, 1994, to

            the court saying that he had suffered a gunshot wound and, on

            his doctor's advice, needed a year's postponement.  The court

            immediately directed Dr. Chuang to file an affidavit from his

            doctor  and  scheduled  a  hearing.   In  the  meantime,  the

            attorneys for Dr. Chuang and his companies moved to  withdraw

            because they  had not been  paid.  Dr. Chuang  did not submit

            the requested affidavit.

                                         -2-
                                         -2-

                 At the June  1994 hearing  the district  court told  Dr.

            Chuang that  he would  be  given 14  days  more to  file  the

            affidavit from  his doctor that  had been requested  in April

            1994 and, absent  the affidavit, he  had 30 days  to get  new

            counsel.  The  court specifically advised Dr.  Chuang that he

            risked default  if  he  did  not secure  counsel,  since  the

            corporations had to  be represented by counsel and Dr. Chuang

            did not propose to represent himself.  

                 Thereafter, in June 1994, Dr. Chuang  filed letters--not

            affidavits--from  two doctors  saying, respectively,  that he

            needed a month's  postponement and six  months' postponement.

            He did not obtain new counsel.  In July  1994, Marriott moved

            to  dismiss  the claims  against it  and  for defaults  as to

            liability on its claims against Dr. Chuang and his companies.

            The  grounds stated were the repeated  failures of the Chuang

            parties to respond to discovery requests.  Dr. Chuang and his

            companies opposed the motions; but for the  next eight months

            they took no other action on the case.

                 Finally, on May  12, 1995, the  district court filed  an

            eight-page memorandum  and order  describing the  sequence of

            events  and  granting  Marriott's motion.    Thereafter,  the

            Chuang parties, now with new  counsel, sought reconsideration

            which was denied.  A hearing was held, damages  were fixed on

            the Marriott  claims, and  judgment was entered  disposing of

            the  case.  The Chuang  parties now appeal,  raising as their

                                         -3-
                                         -3-

            sole issue  whether the district court  abused its discretion

            in granting Marriott's motion.

                 On appeal,  the Chuang  parties argue that  Dr. Chuang's

            gunshot wound--apparently a knee  injury that was the subject

            of surgery in January  1994--prevented him from attending his

            deposition.   They say that his  delay in securing affidavits

            and new counsel and in responding to discovery was the result

            of  mental  and  physical  trauma,  and  some  difficulty  in

            speaking English.  We are also told that  the delays were not

            egregious and that Marriott was not prejudiced by the delay.

                 We think it is clear that Dr. Chuang has not excused his

            failure  to comply  with the  court orders  or his  discovery

            obligations (the  Chuang brief  does not seek  to distinguish

            between   his   position  and   that   of   the  two   Chuang

            corporations).  It  may be that  he had a medical  excuse for

            not attending the depositions, cf. United States v. DeFrantz,
                                           ___ _____________    ________

            708 F.2d 310, 312  (7th Cir. 1983); but nothing in  the later

            letters from the doctors--or two medical affidavits belatedly

            submitted on reconsideration--even begins  to explain why  he

            did nothing for almost 18 months.

                 Nor is there anything to the claim of lack of prejudice.

            There  may be no showing  of special prejudice  (e.g., a lost
                                         _______             ____

            witness); but,  in a period of  overloaded dockets, prejudice

            to   the   court  is   inherent   in   needless  delays   and

            postponements.   As  for  Marriott, it  has  been  left  with

                                         -4-
                                         -4-

            litigation  needlessly hanging  over  its head  and has  been

            forced to  litigate  about discovery  compliance that  should

            have been automatic or  only briefly delayed.  See  Robson v.
                                                           ___  ______

            Hallenbeck,  No. 95-1595, slip op.  at 8-9 (1st  Cir. Apr. 3,
            __________

            1996).

                 It is true  that default  is a severe  sanction but  the

            facts already  cited reveal  a pattern of  non-compliance and

            inattention by  Dr.  Chuang.   See  Damiani v.  Rhode  Island
                                           ___  _______     _____________

            Hosp., 704 F.2d 12, 15-16  (1st Cir. 1983).  For months,  Dr.
            _____

            Chuang failed to comply  with the twice-issued direction that

            he provide  an  affidavit, and  he  failed either  to  secure

            counsel as  directed or,  if additional  time was  needed, to

            request and justify a postponement.   Nor did Dr. Chuang make

            a  serious  effort  to  comply  with  the  discovery  demands

            outstanding  against  him  for  almost  18  months  prior  to

            default.  

                 The district court showed considerable patience in  this

            case.  It provided a warning and a second chance, and it then

            waited for a substantial  period.  In ordering  the dismissal

            and  default, the court  wrote a careful  explanation of what

            had  happened and why the  court was entering  its order.  We

            think that the remedy  was well within the discretion  of the

            district  court, Damiani, 704 F.2d at 13, and that nothing in
                             _______

            the submissions filed on reconsideration required it to alter

            its position.  

                                         -5-
                                         -5-

                 Affirmed.
                 _________

                                         -6-
                                         -6-