Novak v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that with respect to Rule 37(b)(2), “[t]he use of the word ‘shall’ certainly suggests that an award of expenses is mandatory unless one of the two exceptions—substantial justification or other circumstances—applies”
• noting \[i]t is well settled that district courts enjoy wide discretion in sanctioning litigants\ pursuant to Rule 37
• remanding because we could not “assess whether the district court 10 properly exercised its discretion” in declining to impose particular Rule 37 11 sanction
• burden is on disobedient party to avoid imposition of expenses by showing that his failure is justified or that special circumstances make an award of expenses unjust
• “[T]he burden [is] on the disobedient party to avoid expenses by showing that his failure is justified or that special circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” (internal citation omitted)
• “We have never held that Rule 37(b)(2) expenses are mandatory and need not do so here, but . . . [t]he use of the word ‘shall’ certainly suggests that an award of expenses is mandatory unless one of the two exceptions—substantial justification or other circumstances—applies.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).