Professional Documents
Culture Documents
April 1, 1993
_________________________
No. 92-2151
CATHERINE M. JONES, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs, Appellants,
v.
WINNEPESAUKEE REALTY, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
_________________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
[Hon. Norman H. Stahl, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
_________________________
Before
Selya, Circuit Judge,
_____________
Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,
____________________
and Boudin, Circuit Judge.
_____________
_________________________
_________________________
March 12, 1993
_________________________
In
this appeal,
a family
of
attorneys'
affirm.
I.
I.
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
In
Alexander
early
1989,
Catherine
M.
Jones
and
her
son,
by Reid S. Littlefield
to
through
breach of contract,
pretrial
complaint
property
order, the
complaint and
assault, and
two
in which they
Littlefield,
counterclaimed for
trespass.1
In
original plaintiffs
joined David A. Jones,
response to
filed an
amended
an owner of the
Soon
January 2,
1990,
the magistrate-judge
allowed the
Jones served as
motion.
In April
of
action originally
asserted against
of the causes
Littlefield.
Buoyed by
ground that
court
denied
permission
effort
to
Littlefield's
motion
supplement their
and
pleadings,
deficiency.3
gave
Although
appellants
appellants made
On
no
that they
to amend
their
had never
received notice
pleadings, and
of the
denying (despite
clear record to the contrary) that they had withdrawn their other
causes
of action,
court's agreement
appellants sought
to reconsider.
The
beforehand
that
Catherine
Jones's
failure to attend
medical
wife's attendance.
6,
of
1991.
for April
the district
his
and obtained
1992, but
1991.
On
condition
The court
warned
court rescheduled
appellants that
the
their
of
____
3
Notwithstanding
appeared on
April 6.
court's admonition,
Appellants
did not
no plaintiff
communicate directly
attending.
its
the
their former
on
On
May
5,
1992,
the
reconsideration
and, at
of a
sanctions.
denied
the
same
appellants'
on the
and (ii) to
motion
time, granted
default in respect
damages
55(b)(2), (d),
court
Littlefield's
to the
counterclaim.
a dual-purpose hearing
counterclaim,
see
___
Fed. R.
Although appellants
for
(i) to
Civ.
P.
imposition of
for the June
on
September 8,
the
1992, the
counterclaim's
court awarded
assault
count,
Littlefield
dismissed
the
Littlefield attorneys'
fees in
the
amount of
apiece for
and
$6,338.80, and
fined Mr.
and Mrs.
Jones $5,000
This appeal
followed.
II.
II.
DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION
Having
studied the
appellants' contentions
entered
below.
record, we
merit
conclude that
relief from
the
various
none of
orders
A.
A.
Throughout most
of
characterized himself as an
he
maintains this
this litigation,
David Jones
"involuntary plaintiff."
characterization, arguing
We do not
has
On appeal,
that, as
such, he
sure, Jones is
an involuntary plaintiff
in the
the
two
the
property and
indispensable,
the
party,
lease, he
was
see
___
R.
Fed.
P.
perhaps
19.)
an
However,
While he
In this
first obligation
seek any relief that might fairly have been thought available
Beaulieu v.
________
1352 (1st
it
That ends
F.2d 890,
be joined as
a plaintiff,
question of
whether
that the
The
counterclaims, the
a default
a proof-of-
appellants
of
his
to respond
damages
to
in
advance,
this submission
and
directed
before the
hearing.
testified.
In
contrast,
Littlefield
appeared
and
trial judge,
proceeding, has
of damages.
317,
321
entry of
a default establishes
sitting without
the fact
____
of
a Rule
55
a jury in
considerable latitude in
Cir.
following entry
standard dictates
of
1986)
default
the
(reviewing
for abuse
result in
the
assessment
of
800 F.2d
of
discretion).
present situation.
damages
This
The
____________________
4Moreover,
Jones seems
to have
been perfectly
willing to
district judge
default, he
see, e.g.,
___ ____
104 F.R.D.
10,
12
(E.D.
1984),
and,
therefore,
of the
v. Han, 105
___
court, in arriving
it.
the
evidence
Littlefield's
produced
statement
at
the
of
hearing
damages
consisted
and
sworn
mainly
of
testimony.
of discretion in a
$2,000 award.
perceive no
Littlefield stated, by
economic
damages
psychic
injury
for
apprehension,
are
determinations of
not
this type
easily
emotional
computed
are extremely
distress,
and,
Non-
and
therefore,
fact-sensitive. See,
___
____________________
e.g.,
____
Wagenmann
_________
(observing
device
matters
v. Adams,
_____
that "there
which can be
such
scarring").
as .
is
829 F.2d
196,
no scientific
applied to place a
.
Bearing in
. fright,
mind the
216 (1st
Cir. 1987)
formula or
measuring
anxiety,
. .
or emotional
incomplete record,
see supra
___ _____
note
the
whatever
at
deferential
appellants'
or
before
standard of
failure to
submit any
the proof-of-claim
review, we
information
hearing,6
are powerless
and
the
to undo
the
award.
C.
C.
It
is
beyond serious
possesses inherent
conduct
power to
dispute
447
U.S. 752,
exception to
(1980)
awards); Stefan
______
when parties
(recognizing "bad
faith"
v. Laurenitis, 889
__________
F.2d 363,
should
be
used
of attorneys' fees);
S. Ct.
sparingly
court
make fee-shifting
370 (1st
765-66
a federal
Piper,
_____
that
and
see also
___ ____
for
1084
This
egregious
circumstances.
____________________
litigation,
as well
practice,7
determined
threshold
of
satisfied
shift the
We
The
of
burden
the
bad faith
had surpassed
made
and exercised
of Littlefield's
the
specific,
fees
its
to the
the record on
appeal and
court's conclusion
of bad
are
faith
When, as in
error.
court
of untoward
appellants
have scrutinized
that, although
might not be
numerous examples
the
detailed finding
to
appellants.
that
egregiousness.
meticulously
discretion
as offering
record, the
See United States v. St. Cyr, 977 F.2d 698, 706 (1st Cir.
___ _____________
_______
1992).
the fees.
not add to
the use
of
its
inherent
powers.
No
more
was
exigible.
1988).
In this age
repeated
efforts
to
stall
case,
harass
other
____________________
See, e.g., Brockton Sav. Bank v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co.,
___ ____ ___________________
______________________________
771 F.2d
(1986);
5,
12 (1st
Peltier,
_______
Cir. 1985),
548 F.2d
at
cert. denied,
_____ ______
1084.
The
475 U.S.
1018
court appropriately
of monetary
sanctions on
Catherine Jones
and David
Fed. R. Civ.
P. 16(f).9
1007, 1019
is
necessarily
confronted
vested with
When
considerable
district
discretion
in
if so,
____________________
in
See Media
___ _____
F.2d 1228,
1238
within the
(1st Cir.
heartland of
1991).
Because sanctions
are well
the district
court's realm,
we review a
district
such a deferential
to the
F.2d
district court,
1421, 1427
Rivera,
______
878
771 F.2d at
see, e.g.,
___ ____
(1st Cir.
F.2d
1478,
___, ___
erred."
Nunez, 968
_____
1992); Figueroa-Rodriguez
__________________
v. Lopez______
1491
litigants
in attempting to convince
lower court
Although
blanche power
_______
Navarro-Ayala v.
_____________
(1st
Cir.
1988),
12.
the court of
a formidable
op. at 5];
accord
______
Spiller v. U.S.V. Lab., Inc., 842 F.2d 535, 537 (1st Cir. 1988).
_______
_________________
The record supports an assessment
course of
this
litigation, appellants
regularly
defied
court
orders
directing them
to attend
pretrial hearings,
January
Catherine
June
7, 1991,
April
e.g., both
____
6,
1992, and
June
3, 1992,
and
24, 1991.
episodes, they
Although appellants
offered no
offered excuses
for these
To
April 6
and
June 3,
1992,
by claiming
that,
despite all
11
indications
to
the contrary,
scheduled hearings.
It was
The
failure
to
of
foot-dragging"
in affirming dismissal of
comply
with
receive
plaintiff's "history
similar excuse
did not
notice of
entitled to do so.
(noting
they
court
orders).
F.2d at 537
and
rejecting
give
another
some
the
other
eventually
family
member's)
proffered were
but
neither timely
medical
records
filed nor
or
they
served, as
and
large
too
vague to
checkered pattern,
warned
satisfy
appellants'
and given,
appellants on
more than
consequences of failure to
burden.
one occasion
Given
this
district court
about
the likely
court acted
See
___
Medfit
______
Int'l, Inc., ___ F.2d ___, ___ (1st Cir. 1993) [No. 92-1458, slip
___________
for
failure
to
attend warranted
dismissal
counterclaim under
also Thibeault v.
____ _________
of
the
Square D
________
totality of
likewise
On
conclude
this point,
that
the
the
sanctions
district court,
are
not
after
citing
them to
attend
12
appellants'
defiance
of two
orders
directing
pretrial
hearings
engage in
the
and
noting their
similar behavior
chronicled
propensity
in earlier proceedings,
to
stated that
this
litigation."10
recognized
basis
for
sanction.
determining
Deterrence
the
amount
is
of
a
a
widely
monetary
Navarro________
gauging
finding
range reasonably
that the
amounts are
"within the
minimum
1427, we are constrained to conclude that the court below did not
overspill the banks of its discretion under Rule 16(f).
III.
III.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSION
We
need go no further.11
judge exhibited
commendable patience.
them
In this
to
attend
In the end,
however, he
pretrial
hearings
orders
hearings
____________________
motions
and
submissions,
many
with a torrent of
containing
scurrilous
the
nisi
____
prius
_____
roll reveals,
federal courts'
reasonable
means,
there
together
manage litigation
principled
Affirmed.
________
the
appellants blatantly
authority to
is no
with
basis
for
14