S. Michael Sigliano v. Ramon Mendoza

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that there is no requirement for a direct order to compel an appearance at a scheduled deposition as a prerequisite to the imposition of sanctions under Rule 37(d)
• noting the “sanctions available to the district court are discretionary and the imposition of such sanctions ‘as are just’ will not be reversed 1 unless there has been an abuse of discretion”
• awarding case-ending sanctions when (1) the 21 nonmovant failed to respond to interrogatories, failed to respond to an associated motion to compel, and failed to appear at a hearing on a motion to dismiss; and (2
• “Dismissal is a proper sanction under Rule 37(d) for a serious or total failure to respond to discovery even without a prior order.”
• “Dismissal is a 24 proper sanction under Rule 37(d) for a serious or total failure to respond to discovery even without a 25 1 prior order.”
• “Where the drastic sanctions of dismissal or default 8 are imposed . . . the range of discretion is narrowed and the losing party’s non-compliance must be 9 due to willfulness, fault or bad faith.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).