Hashemi v. Campaigner Publications, Inc.

737 F.2d 1538, 39 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 983
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
DecidedAugust 1, 1984
DocketNo. 83-8584
StatusPublished
Cited by26 cases

This text of 737 F.2d 1538 (Hashemi v. Campaigner Publications, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hashemi v. Campaigner Publications, Inc., 737 F.2d 1538, 39 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 983 (11th Cir. 1984).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This appeal arises from an order of dismissal entered by the district court pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(d).1 In its order, the district court cited repeated failures of the appellant to appear and give deposition testimony. In doing so, appellant defied proper notices, confirmed agreements and court orders.

While we agree that the sanction of dismissal is a most extreme remedy and [1539]*1539one not to be imposed if lesser sanctions will-do, see Marshall v. Segona, 621 F.2d 763, 766-67 (5th Cir.1980), the district court retains the discretion to dismiss a complaint where the party’s conduct amounts to “flagrant disregard and willful disobedience” of the court’s discovery orders. See Phillips Insurance Company of North America, 633 F.2d 1165, 1167 (5th Cir.1981).

Although appellant argues that the district court should have conducted a hearing prior to dismissing the complaint, we note that the district court conducted an earlier hearing. At that time, appellant represented to the court that he would appear for a scheduled deposition. He did not appear, nor did he adequately explain his reasons for absenting himself from later scheduled depositions. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint without conducting a hearing and AFFIRM on the basis of the district court order, see 572 F.Supp. 331.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

WILLIAMS v. KIA GEORGIA INC
M.D. Georgia, 2025
Keith Stansell v. Samark Jose Lopez Bello
120 F.4th 754 (Eleventh Circuit, 2024)
Daker v. Head
S.D. Georgia, 2022
Tony L. Kelly v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc.
376 F. App'x 909 (Eleventh Circuit, 2010)
Watkis v. Payless Shoesource, Inc.
174 F.R.D. 113 (M.D. Florida, 1997)
McCoy v. Johnson
176 F.R.D. 676 (N.D. Georgia, 1997)
League v. Graham (In Re Graham)
191 B.R. 489 (N.D. Georgia, 1996)
Helmac Products Corp. v. Roth (Plastics) Corp.
814 F. Supp. 560 (E.D. Michigan, 1992)
Thomas v. Victoria's Secret Stores
141 F.R.D. 456 (S.D. Ohio, 1992)
Williams v. Puryear
515 So. 2d 1231 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1987)
Navarro v. Pineda
117 F.R.D. 175 (S.D. Florida, 1987)
Hicks v. Feeney
124 F.R.D. 79 (D. Delaware, 1987)
George B. Buchanan, Jr. v. Hugh E. Bowman, II
820 F.2d 359 (Eleventh Circuit, 1987)
Telectron, Inc. v. Overhead Door Corp.
116 F.R.D. 107 (S.D. Florida, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
737 F.2d 1538, 39 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 983, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hashemi-v-campaigner-publications-inc-ca11-1984.