John T. Haskins v. Robert O. Lister and Marie Lister

Eighth Circuit

John T. Haskins v. Robert O. Lister and Marie Lister

626 F.2d 42, 29 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 1128, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 16496

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJune 19, 1980

Docket80-1151

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 626 F.2d 42 (John T. Haskins v. Robert O. Lister and Marie Lister) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

John T. Haskins v. Robert O. Lister and Marie Lister, 626 F.2d 42, 29 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 1128, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 16496 (8th Cir. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Haskins brought suit against Robert and Marie Lister in the Eastern District of Arkansas for securities fraud in connection with the sale of interests in oil and gas leases, seeking to recover his investment of $440,000, plus interest, costs and attorney’s fees, and to cancel a promissory note he had given in connection with the purchase. The Listers repeatedly refused to submit to discovery by failing to produce documents, attend depositions, or answer interrogatories. The district court conducted hearings in an attempt to implement discovery and ordered the Listers to produce documents and income tax returns and submit to deposition. The court also issued sanctions in the form of attorney’s fees and costs.

The Listers almost totally failed to comply with the discovery orders. They failed to produce the enumerated documents and their income tax returns. They continually evaded service by the United States Marshal, gave false testimony at the hearing they attended and refused to attend another hearing as they had been personally ordered. They transferred substantial assets in defiance of the court’s injunction against such transfer. The Listers’ counsel was finally permitted to withdraw, partially because the Listers continually evaded them and refused to even provide them with the requested information. After four hearings, the imposition of lesser sanctions, and repeated efforts to accommodate the defendants, the district court entered a default judgment in favor of Haskins pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(C). The Listers appeal.

Upon careful review of the record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment on the basis of Judge Roy’s lengthy and well-reasoned opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

Haskins brought suit against Robert and Marie Lister in the Eastern District of Arkansas for securities fraud in connection with the sale of interests in oil and gas leases, seeking to recover his investment of $440,000, plus interest, costs and attorney’s fees, and to cancel a promissory note he had given in connection with the purchase. The Listers repeatedly refused to submit to discovery by failing to produce documents, attend depositions, or answer interrogatories. The district court conducted hearings in an attempt to implement discovery and ordered the Listers to produce documents and income tax returns and submit to deposition. The court also issued sanctions in the form of attorney’s fees and costs.

The Listers almost totally failed to comply with the discovery orders. They failed to produce the enumerated documents and their income tax returns. They continually evaded service by the United States Marshal, gave false testimony at the hearing they attended and refused to attend another hearing as they had been personally ordered. They transferred substantial assets in defiance of the court’s injunction against such transfer. The Listers’ counsel was finally permitted to withdraw, partially because the Listers continually evaded them and refused to even provide them with the requested information. After four hearings, the imposition of lesser sanctions, and repeated efforts to accommodate the defendants, the district court entered a default judgment in favor of Haskins pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(C). The Listers appeal.

Upon careful review of the record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment on the basis of Judge Roy’s lengthy and well-reasoned opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

626 F.2d 42, 29 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 1128, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 16496, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-t-haskins-v-robert-o-lister-and-marie-lister-ca8-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack