ILNews

7th Circuit affirms dismissal of plaintiffs

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Before the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals could rule on the dismissal of multiple plaintiffs from a civil rights and breach of contract lawsuit, the appellate court had to determine if it had jurisdiction to rule on the plaintiffs’ appeal.

In Adrianna Brown, et al. v. Columbia Sussex Corp., et al., No. 10-3849, 224 of the original 268 plaintiffs were dismissed from the lawsuit against the Baton Rouge Marriott because they continually missed formal and informal deadlines throughout pre-trial discovery. The plaintiffs – a group of people traveling to visit historically black universities – had their reservation at the Marriott canceled, forcing the group to drive through the night to their next destination. The plaintiffs believe the decision to cancel was racially motivated.

On Nov. 10, 2010, the District Court concluded it had to dismiss the plaintiffs who hadn’t responded as a sanction. A month later, 53 of those dismissed appealed, but a review by the 7th Circuit showed the District Court ruling wasn’t a final judgment. The District Court on Jan. 7, 2011, granted the appellants’ Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 54(b) motion, finding their claims are separate from the claims of the remaining plaintiffs and entered a final judgment.

The Marriott argued that the 7th Circuit lacked jurisdiction to even rule on the matter because the plaintiffs prematurely filed their appeal and never filed another one after the District Court entered final judgment in January. The appellate court looked at the interplay among 28 U.S.C. Section 1291, Rule 54(b), and Rule 4(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, as well as FirsTier Mortgage Co. v. Investors Mortgage Ins. Co., 498 U.S. 269 (1991), to find that they could rule on the appeal.

“We therefore hold that, in the context of a multi-party or multi-claim suit, a premature notice of appeal from the dismissal of a party or claim will ripen upon the entry of a belated Rule 54(b) judgment under Rule 4(a)(2) and FirsTier,” wrote Judge Joel Flaum.

Addressing the appellants’ arguments, the 7th Circuit found the District Court was within its discretion to find that the appellants acted willfully, in bad faith or with fault in their discovery delays despite the appellant’s claims otherwise.

“In the case at hand, the district court made a finding that appellants displayed a pattern of ‘willful delay and avoidance,’ thus meeting the (Federal Rule of Civil Procedure) Rule 37 standard of willfulness, bad faith, or fault. A comparison to relevant case law clearly illustrates that this finding was not erroneous,” he wrote.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT