Casavelli et al v. Britton et al

Filing 53

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants' motion to dismiss [# 50 ] is granted, and this case is dismissed with prejudice, with plaintiffs to bear all taxable costs of the action. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 05/26/2015. (CBL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
NICHOLAS CASAVELLI &
NICOLINA CASTELLI,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
BRIAN J. BRITTON, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:13 CV 2433 CDP

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
In this Court’s Order of April 13, 2015, I granted defendants’ motion to
compel the plaintiffs to provide proper Rule 26 disclosures and to otherwise
participate in discovery. Plaintiffs Nicholas Casavelli and Nicolina Castelli were
ordered to comply with the defendants’ discovery requests by no later than May
11, 2015. The plaintiffs were cautioned that their failure to obey the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this court had delayed this case. They
were “specifically warned that their failure to comply with this Order may result in
the full range of sanctions available, including dismissal of their claims with
prejudice.”
On May 14, 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss. That motion
notified this Court that the plaintiffs had not complied with the Order of April 13
and sought dismissal of the case with prejudice under Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure 41(b) and 37(b)(2)(A). Plaintiffs have not responded to the motion, and
the time to do so has passed.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 allows a district court to order the
imposition of sanctions where a party fails to obey a court order to participate in
discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A). Likewise, Rule 41 authorizes dismissal
where a plaintiff fails to prosecute or comply with any order of the court. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 41(b). Where a defendant moves to dismiss under Rule 41(b), the dismissal
may operate as an adjudication on the merits. See id. (providing exceptions).
A district court has wide latitude in imposing sanctions for failure to comply
with discovery. Aziz v. Wright, 34 F.3d 587, 589 (8th Cir. 1994). However, the
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has instructed that dismissal with prejudice should
occur “only if there is: (1) an order compelling discovery; (2) a willful violation of
that order; and (3) prejudice to the other party.” Schubert v. Pfizer, Inc., 459 F.
App'x 568, 572 (8th Cir. 2012) (citing Keefer v. Provident Life and Acc. Ins. Co.,
238 F.3d 937, 940 (8th Cir. 2000)).
I find that dismissal with prejudice is appropriate in this case. Plaintiffs
disobeyed this Court’s Order of April 13. They were warned that their previous
failure to participate in discovery or otherwise prosecute their claim had delayed
the case. This delay has prejudiced the defendants. Plaintiffs were also warned
that their case might be dismissed with prejudice if they continued to disobey the

-2-

Court’s orders. Under these circumstances, it appears that the plaintiffs’ actions in
this case constitute the willful violation of the Order of April 13. The case will be
dismissed with prejudice.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants’ motion to dismiss [# 50] is
granted, and this case is dismissed with prejudice, with plaintiffs to bear all
taxable costs of the action.

CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 26th day of May, 2015.

-3-