Parlier v. Lewis et al
Filing
72
ORDER granting in part and deferring in part re 66 MOTION to Dismiss; MOTION for Attorney Fees and for Sanctions; MOTION for Order to Show Cause; and 71 Second MOTION to Dismiss. Default Hearing set for Thursday , 4/7/2016 @ 10:00 AM in Courtroom, 200 W Broad St, Statesville, NC 28677 before District Judge Richard Voorhees. Trial of this matter is continued from March 7, 2016 until further decision of the Court. See Order for details. Signed by District Judge Richard Voorhees on 2/25/16. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(smj)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATESVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14-CV-00085-RLV-DCK
JAMES LEE PARLIER, JR., AN
INDIVIDUAL (D/B/A JIMMY PARLIER
HORSE TRANSPORT, PARLIER
FARMS, AND PARLIER EQUINE
TRANSPORT & CARRIAGES),
Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant,
v.
BRENDA CASTEEN, ET AL.,
Defendant and Counter-Plaintiff.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER
THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on Defendant and Counter-Plaintiff Brenda
Casteen’s original and renewed Motions to Dismiss and for Contempt, Sanctions, and Attorney’s
Fees (collectively, the “Motion”). [Doc. No. 66]; [Doc. No. 71]. For the reasons that follow, the
Court GRANTS the Motion.
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff James Lee Parlier, Jr. (the “Plaintiff”) filed a “Verified Complaint” initiating this
action on May 29, 2014. [Doc. No. 2]. The complaint asserts state law causes of action for: (1)
tortious interference with contract; (2) defamation per se; (3) defamation per quod; and (4) a
violation of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, N.C. Gen. Stat § 75-1,
et seq. Id. Defendant and Counter-Plaintiff Brenda Casteen (hereinafter referred to simply as the
“Defendant”) filed an answer and counterclaim on August 11, 2014. [Doc. No. 19]. Defendant
later filed an amended counterclaim on September 19, 2014. [Doc. No. 44]. Defendant asserts state
law counterclaims for: (1) claim and delivery; (2) breach of contract; (3) implied contract/quantum
-1-
meruit/unjust enrichment; (4) conversion; (5) possession of personal property; (6) fraud; (7) unfair
and deceptive trade practices; (8) punitive damages; (9) battery; (10) assault; (11) false
imprisonment; and (12) intentional infliction of emotional distress. [Doc. No. 44]. On October 2,
2014, Plaintiff filed his answer to the Defendant’s amended counterclaim. [Doc. No. 46].
The Court entered its “Pretrial Order and Case Management Plan” (the “Pretrial Order”)
on October 23, 2014. [Doc. No. 47]. The Pretrial Order, inter alia, set the following deadlines:
discovery completion – October 9, 2015; alternative dispute resolution report – November 9, 2015;
dispositive motions – November 9, 2015; and trial – March 7, 2016. Id. Originally this action
included several defendants; however, by way of a stipulation of voluntary dismissal filed on
January 13, 2015, the Plaintiff trimmed the defendants down to just Defendant Casteen. See [Doc.
No. 53].
On February 26, 2015, Plaintiff’s counsel of record was permitted to withdraw his
representation. [Doc. No. 54]; [Doc. No. 55]. Plaintiff was advised by the Court that, even as a pro
se party, he must still abide by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court’s local rules, and
the Court’s Pretrial Order. See [Doc. No. 55]. On August 11, 2015, Defendant filed a motion to
compel against Plaintiff. [Doc. No. 63]. In her motion, the Defendant requested that the Court
compel Plaintiff: (1) to provide further suitable contact information for service of documents and
correspondence; (2) answer and provide responses to Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories,
Requests for Production of Documents, and Requests for Admission within thirty (30) days of
service thereof; and (3) award Defendant Casteen the reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees
incurred. See id. Plaintiff failed to file a response to the motion.
On September 21, 2015, the Court entered an order granting the Defendant’s motion to
compel, except the Court did not award Defendant her reasonable attorney’s fees or otherwise
-2-
sanction the Plaintiff. See [Doc. No. 64]. The Court directed the Plaintiff to provide the Defendant
and the Court with a suitable address for service and to respond to Defendant’s discovery requests
by a date certain. Id. The Court also granted Defendant leave to refile her request for sanctions. Id.
Plaintiff failed to abide by this Court’s September 21, 2015 order. On October 14, 2015,
Defendant renewed her request for attorney’s fees and costs, and sought additional relief as
follows: (1) an order dismissing the Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice; (2) an order striking the
Plaintiff’s answer to the Defendant’s counterclaim; (3) an order entering default judgment against
the Plaintiff on the Defendant’s counterclaim; (4) an order scheduling a hearing to determine
Defendant’s damages; and (5) an order directing that the costs and attorney’s fees arising out of
Defendant’s various motions be taxed against the Plaintiff. See [Doc. No. 66]. Defendant’s Motion
was brought pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff filed no response
to the Defendant’s Motion within the prescribed time. On October 26, 2015, the Court, sua sponte,
granted Plaintiff leave to file a response to the Defendant’s Motion within fourteen (14) days.
[Doc. No. 67]. Again, Plaintiff failed to file a response. On February 22, 2016, Defendant renewed
her request. See [Doc. No. 71].
II.
DISCUSSION
Rule 37(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in relevant part, as follows:
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:
. . .
(iii) striking pleadings in whole or in part;
. . .
(v)
dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or in part; [or]
(vi)
rendering a default judgment against the disobedient party[.]
-3-
Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 37(b)(2)(A). Rule 37 also provides that “the court must order the disobedient
party . . . to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by the failure, unless
the failure was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.”
Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 37(b)(2)(C).
The Court has broad discretion to impose sanctions on a party who fails to comply with
its discovery orders. Hathcock v. Navistar Int'l Transp. Corp., 53 F.3d 36, 40 (4th Cir. 1995).
When the sanction is dismissal, however, the Fourth Circuit applies the following four-part test
to balance the severity of that sanction against the seriousness of the non-complying party’s
misconduct: (1) whether the noncomplying party acted in bad faith; (2) the amount of prejudice
his noncompliance caused his adversary; (3) the need for deterrence of the particular sort of
noncompliance; and (4) the effectiveness of less drastic sanctions. Mut. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n
v. Richards & Assocs., Inc., 872 F.2d 88, 92 (4th Cir. 1989); Green v. John Chatillon & Sons,
188 F.R.D. 422, 424-25 (M.D.N.C. 1998) (applying the four-part Mutual Federal test and
finding dismissal appropriate when a plaintiff fails to comply with court-ordered discovery and
offers no explanation for this failure, deprives the defendant of discoverable information, and
was previously sanctioned for similar conduct).
Here, the Court finds that the four-factored test announced in Mutual Federal is satisfied
and dismissal of the Plaintiff’s complaint is warranted. First, the Plaintiff was on notice that,
when his counsel withdrew, he was bound to comply with the rules governing litigation in this
Court, including the Court’s Pretrial Order and all other relevant orders, despite being a pro se
party. See [Doc. No. 55]. Following the withdrawal of his counsel, Defendant served discovery
on Plaintiff that went unanswered. Defendant was required to file a motion to compel and the
Court entered an order granting the Defendant’s request. In its order, the Court clearly directed
-4-
the Plaintiff to provide the Defendant and the Court with an appropriate address if he intended to
continue this litigation. See [Doc. No. 64]. The Court also ordered the Plaintiff to comply with
his discovery obligations. Id. Plaintiff failed to do so; indeed, the Court has heard nothing from
the Plaintiff since Defendant’s original motion to compel was filed in August 2015. After the
Defendant filed her October 14, 2015 motion for sanctions and dismissal, Plaintiff failed to
timely respond. On October 26, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiff additional time to respond to
the Defendant’s sanctions request; yet the Plaintiff never filed a response. It is clear to the Court
that the Plaintiff neither intends to continue prosecuting this action nor to comply with the
Court’s rules or directives. The Court finds that the Plaintiff has acted in bad faith, and such a
finding weighs in favor of dismissal. See, e.g., Water Out Drying Corp. v. Allen, 2007 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 102869, 2007 WL 2746889, at *1 (W.D.N.C. 2007) (failing to provide answers to
discovery requests despite a clear court order constitutes “bad faith”); Green, 188 F.R.D. at 424
(“Noncompliance with discovery orders can serve as a basis for bad faith.”).
Second, Plaintiff has deprived the Defendant of her ability to not only defend against his
claims against her, but his noncompliance has deprived her of her ability to adequately prosecute
her counterclaims against him. Defendant has been impeded from obtaining any meaningful
discovery relating to the Plaintiff’s claims against her or her claims against him because of the
Plaintiff’s failure to provide a satisfactory address for service, and because of his total
abandonment of this litigation. See Lynch v. Novant Medical Group, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
81478, 2009 WL 2915039, at *7 (W.D.N.C. 2009) (finding the inability to obtain complete
discovery responses prejudicial). Defendant is faced with moving forward in this case without
the benefit of knowing what, if any, facts she will have to defend against. Further, because this
matter is scheduled for trial at the beginning of next month, Plaintiff’s excessive delays and
-5-
multiple failures to respond have deprived Defendant of the ability to present her claims to a
jury. Additionally, Plaintiff’s course of conduct has wasted the Defendant’s (and the Court’s)
time and resources. Defendant has prepared and filed a motion to compel and two motions for
sanctions. This Court has considered and entered an order on the motion to compel, granted
Plaintiff leave to provide a late response to the request for sanctions, and now considers and
enters this order on the Defendant’s Motion. Because the Plaintiff’s unresponsiveness has
deprived the Defendant of the ability to defend against the complaint, substantially prejudiced
Defendant’s claims against Plaintiff, and deprived Defendant and the Court of precious time and
resources, the Court finds that the second Mutual Federal factor weighs in favor of dismissal.
Third, the Court must also take action to deter similar conduct from other plaintiffs. As
stated by Fourth Circuit, “not only does the noncomplying party jeopardize his or her adversary’s
case by such indifference [to the Court’s orders], but to ignore such bold challenges to the
district court’s power would encourage other litigants to flirt with similar misconduct.” Mut. Fed.
Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 872 F.2d at 92 (citing Nat'l Hockey League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club,
Inc., 427 U.S. 639, 643, 96 S. Ct. 2778, 49 L. Ed. 2d 747 (1976)). By neither complying with the
September 2015 order nor the rules governing litigation before this Court, Plaintiff has
“undermine[d] this Court ['s] ability to manage this case effectively.” Ellis v. Wal-Mart
Distributions, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97275, 2011 WL 3804233, at *2 (W.D.N.C. 2011). Thus,
because Plaintiff’s noncompliance undermines effective case management and challenges this
Court’s power to control the progress of this case, it is conduct that must be deterred, and this
again weighs in favor of dismissal.
Finally, it appears to the Court that no sanction (short of dismissal) will be effective in
this case. The Court’s September 2015 order on the motion to compel, which spared Plaintiff
-6-
from the Defendant’s request for attorney’s fees and costs, was insufficient to persuade the
Plaintiff to comply with his obligations. Plaintiff has been afforded ample opportunity correct his
indifference to the Court’s authority and this litigation. He has ignored those opportunities.
Because trial is currently scheduled to proceed in this matter in short order, no alternative
sanction or less drastic measure would be effective to deter Plaintiff’s contempt for the Court’s
authority and the Defendant’s rights. For these reasons, the Court finds it appropriate to
DISMISS the Plaintiff’s complaint, with prejudice. For the same reasons, the Court is left with
no choice but to STRIKE the Plaintiff’s answer to the Defendant’s counterclaim, and order that
the Plaintiff be placed in default.
III.
DECRETAL
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED THAT
(1)
The Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED-IN-PART AND DEFERRED-INPART (Doc. No. 66), (Doc. No. 71);
(2)
The Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED as follows:
a. The Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. No. 2) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;
b. The Plaintiff’s answer (Doc. No. 46) to the Defendant’s amended
counterclaim (Doc. No. 44) is HEREBY STRICKEN;
c. The Clerk shall enter the Plaintiff into default as to the Defendant’s amended
counterclaim (Doc. No. 44);
(3)
The Defendant’s Motion is DEFERRED as follows:
a. The Defendant’s request for default judgment, attorney’s fees, and costs are
HEREBY DEFERRED until the Court holds a hearing on the Defendant’s
alleged damages, fees, and costs;
-7-
b. The Court shall hold a hearing on the Defendant’s request for default
judgment on APRIL 7, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. at the Statesville Courthouse, 200
West Broad Street, Statesville, North Carolina 28677;
(4)
The trial of this matter, currently scheduled for the Court’s March Term, and
scheduled to commence on March 7, 2016, is HEREBY CONTINUED until
further decision of the Court.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: February 25, 2016
-8-
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?