Kelechi Nwabeke v. Torso Tiger, Inc.

194 F. App'x 669
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
DecidedAugust 24, 2006
Docket06-10480
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 194 F. App'x 669 (Kelechi Nwabeke v. Torso Tiger, 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
Kelechi Nwabeke v. Torso Tiger, Inc., 194 F. App'x 669 (11th Cir. 2006).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The district court dismissed this case with prejudice, ordering plaintiff to bear the defendant’s costs and fees, for plaintiffs failure to appear at her Rule 35 examination and for her misleading deposition testimony. Plaintiffs failure to attend the examination occurred nine days after her counsel was permitted by the court to withdraw and the court “continued” her ease for sixty days to secure new counsel. Plaintiff asserts that she was advised by her counsel, prior to his withdrawal, that she need not attend the examination while her case was continued.

While we agree with the district court that dismissal is an appropriate sanction where the circumstances indicate a clear record of delay, we are concerned that such circumstances are not entirely clear in this case. The record in this case lacks any clear support for the conclusion that plaintiffs failure to attend her examination was “willful,” and lends itself to the inference that misunderstanding or confusion, engendered in part by an officer of the court, may have led to her failure to attend. For such a harsh sanction as dismissal, we require that the record clearly reflect a willful pattern of delay and obstruction of the orderly progress of the case. See EEOC v. Troy State Univ., 693 F.2d 1353, 1357-58 (11th Cir.1982) (reversing dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37 because noncompliance with a discovery order stemmed from confusion and misunderstanding). Accordingly, we shall remand this case for such findings to be made.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

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

Related

Clark v. Target Corporation
M.D. Florida, 2024

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
194 F. App'x 669, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kelechi-nwabeke-v-torso-tiger-inc-ca11-2006.