Nostalgia Network, Inc. v. Rayle
This text of 11 F. App'x 720 (Nostalgia Network, Inc. v. Rayle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
ORDER2
The district judge ordered that the defendant’s answer be stricken and default entered because the defendant failed to appear for a settlement conference and then did not respond to an order to show cause in writing why his answer should not be stricken and default entered. The District Court then ordered a default judgment against the defendant.
A court may not strike an answer and issue a default judgment to punish a contempt of court unrelated to the merits of the case. See Hovey v. Elliot, 167 U.S. 409, 413-14, 17 S.Ct. 841, 42 L.Ed. 215 (1897); Phoceene Sous-Marine, S.A. v. U.S. Phosmarine, Inc., 682 F.2d 802, 806 (9th Cir.1982). However, when the misconduct of a party interferes with the production of evidence, default judgment is proper. Hammond Packing Co. v. Arkansas, 212 U.S. 322, 350-51, 29 S.Ct. 370, 53 L.Ed. 530 (1909).
The case is remanded to the District Court to reevaluate its order and determine whether or not the defendant acted in a manner which permits a default judgment.
All further appeals in this case will be assigned to this panel for determination.
Remanded for further proceedings.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
11 F. App'x 720, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nostalgia-network-inc-v-rayle-ca9-2001.