Case Resuscitated after Dismissal

• Author: Benjamin E. Long
• Pages: 14-15

Photo Illustra tion by Elmarie Jara © G etty Images

© Getty Image s

By Benjamin E. Long,

Litigation News Associate Editor

federal appellate cour t over-

turned a dis trict cour t deci-

sion that dismiss ed a lawsuit

because of an attor ney’s mis-

conduct. The lawyer re peat-

edly misse d deadlines t hroughout the

course of the litigat ion and failed to

comply with di scovery obligat ions.

In the ruli ng, the appellate court con-

ceded that the di strict cour t’s frustra-

tion was understand able but analyzed

whether the attorne y’s conduct was

egregious enou gh to warrant such a

harsh penalt y. Further, the appellate

court noted that t he district court

failed to reasonably explore meanin g-

ful alternat ives to the tough sanct ions

imposed. ABA L itigation Section lead-

ers generally agre e with the appellate

court’s reasoning t hat the trial court’s

punishment did not qu ite t the crime

in this case , although a more thorough

discussion by the d istrict may have

helped the appellate cour t justify the

distric t court’s decision .

Counsel Falls Down on the Job

In Luna Di stributing LLC v. Stoli

Group LLC , the plaintiff led a trade -

mark infri ngement lawsuit in the U.S.

District Cou rt for the Central District

of Californ ia. Throughout the 19

months the case was l itigated, Luna’s

attorney repeated ly missed dead-

lines and fail ed to comply with

discovery obl igations. He

arrived three hou rs late to

one hearing and m issed

a status conferenc e alto-

gether. He also faile d to

respond in a timely ma n-

ner to a Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

motion.

Stoli Group led for sum-

mary judgment a nd requested

in the alternative t hat the case

be dismisse d for failure to pros-

ecute under Federal Ru le of Civil

Procedure 41(b). Continuing the

pattern of beh avior throughout

the case, Lun a’s attorney failed to

timely respond to the Ru le 41(b)

motion. The dist rict court granted

the motion and dism issed the matter

with prejudice.

Luna later led t wo motions to recon-

sider the dismiss al. The district cour t

was not persuaded and ordered Lu na

(not its attorney) to pay approximately

$85,000 in di scovery sanctions under

Federal Rule of Civil P rocedure 37(d).

Case Resuscitated

after Dismissal

Sanction overturned as

abuse of discretion

14 | SECTION OF LITIGATION

Published in Litigation News Volume 46, Number 3, Spring 20 21. © 2021 by the American Bar A ssociation. Repr oduced with permissi on. All rights reser ved. This informati on or any portion the reof may not be copie d or disseminated in any

form or by any means or sto red in an electronic da tabase or retrieval sy stem without the ex press writt en consent of the Amer ican Bar Associatio n.