Sims v. CM Food Service LLC
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn on 8/18/16. (SMH)
2016 Aug-18 PM 03:40
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
CM FOOD SERVICE, L.L.C., doing
business as Michael’s Restaurant; et al,
CASE NO. 2:14-CV-2224-SLB
On July 7, 2016, the court ordered defendant Charles Matsos to appear and show
cause why he should not be sanctioned for failing to appear for a Status Conference as
ordered by the court. (Doc. 37.)1 Mr. Matsos again failed to appear or to otherwise contact
the court. After his attorney was allowed to withdraw, Mr. Matsos has repeatedly and
willfully failed to appear and has unreasonably delayed and/or interfered with expeditious
management of this case.2 The court finds that a lesser sanction would not serve the interests
of justice as, despite numerous opportunities, Mr. Matsos has refused to participate in this
Rule 16(f) provides “the court may issue any just orders, including those authorized
Reference to a document number, [“Doc. ___”], refers to the number assigned to each
document as it is filed in the court’s record.
In addition to failing to appear for the July 7, 2016, Status Conference, Mr. Matsos
did not respond to the court’s Order of November 11, 2015. (Doc. 32.)
by Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(ii)-(vii),3 if a party or its attorney . . . fails to appear at a scheduling or
other pretrial conference . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f)(1)(A). “The sanctions contained in
Rule 16(f) were designed to punish . . . parties for conduct which unreasonably delays or
otherwise interferes with the expeditious management of trial preparation.” DIRECTV, Inc.
v. Huynh, 318 F. Supp. 2d 1122, 1127 (M.D. Ala. 2004)(quoting Goforth v. Owens, 766 F.2d
1533, 1535 (11th Cir. 1985)).
The court finds that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f), entry of a default judgment in
favor of plaintiff and against defendant Charles Matsos is warranted under the facts and
Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(ii)-(vii) provides:
If a party . . . fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery, . . . the
court where the action is pending may issue further just orders. They may
include the following:
(ii) prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing
designated claims or defenses, or from introducing designated matters
(iii) striking pleadings in whole or in part;
(iv) staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed;
(v) dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or in part;
(vi) rendering a default judgment against the disobedient party; or
(vii) treating as contempt of court the failure to obey any order except
an order to submit to a physical or mental examination.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(ii)-(vii).
circumstances. See Giovanno v. Fabec, 804 F.3d 1361, 1365-66 (11th Cir. 2015). A
separate Order entering a default judgment and allowing plaintiff time to file a statement of
damages and attoreneys’ fees will be entered contemporaneously with this Memorandum
DONE this 18th day of August, 2016.
SHARON LOVELACE BLACKBURN
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?