National Grange Mutual Insurance v. Sharp Equipment Co. of Reading PA

Third Circuit

National Grange Mutual Insurance v. Sharp Equipment Co. of Reading PA

55 F. App'x 85

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedJanuary 17, 2003

Docket02-1876

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 55 F. App'x 85 (National Grange Mutual Insurance v. Sharp Equipment Co. of Reading PA) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

National Grange Mutual Insurance v. Sharp Equipment Co. of Reading PA, 55 F. App'x 85 (3d Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

MCKEE, Circuit Judge.

Sharp Equipment Co. of Reading PA, and its sole shareholder and president, Korey Blanck, are insureds of National Grange Mutual Insurance Co. They appeal the district court’s order granting National Grange’s motion for discovery sanctions by dismissing Sharp’s and Blanck’s breach of contract and bad faith actions. We will affirm.

Inasmuch as the district court has already set forth the factual and procedural history of this case, it is unnecessary to repeat that history here. See Sharp Equipment v. National Grange, Nos. 01-0628 and 01-1184, 2002 WL 442823 (E.D.Pa. Mar.1, 2001). It is sufficient to note for our purposes that the record fully supports the district court’s finding that there have “been repeated, prejudicial, and wilful delays in document discovery, answering interrogatories and Mr. Blanck’s depositions.” Id. at *1. Moreover, the district court has fully and completely analyzed each of the relevant six factors we established in Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir.1984), for determining whether dismissal is an appropriate discovery sanction. We can add nothing to district court’s thoughtful and searching analysis. The district court clearly did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the actions. Therefore, we will affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in the opinion of the district court.

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

OPINION

MCKEE, Circuit Judge.

Sharp Equipment Co. of Reading PA, and its sole shareholder and president, Korey Blanck, are insureds of National Grange Mutual Insurance Co. They appeal the district court’s order granting National Grange’s motion for discovery sanctions by dismissing Sharp’s and Blanck’s breach of contract and bad faith actions. We will affirm.

Inasmuch as the district court has already set forth the factual and procedural history of this case, it is unnecessary to repeat that history here. See Sharp Equipment v. National Grange, Nos. 01-0628 and 01-1184, 2002 WL 442823 (E.D.Pa. Mar.1, 2001). It is sufficient to note for our purposes that the record fully supports the district court’s finding that there have “been repeated, prejudicial, and wilful delays in document discovery, answering interrogatories and Mr. Blanck’s depositions.” Id. at *1. Moreover, the district court has fully and completely analyzed each of the relevant six factors we established in Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir.1984), for determining whether dismissal is an appropriate discovery sanction. We can add nothing to district court’s thoughtful and searching analysis. The district court clearly did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the actions. Therefore, we will affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in the opinion of the district court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 F. App'x 85, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-grange-mutual-insurance-v-sharp-equipment-co-of-reading-pa-ca3-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack