BRANCH-HAINES v. EAST COAST WAFFLES INC, 1:18-cv-00229

Background

Plaintiff alleges that on Sept. 27, 2015 a sink/soap dispenser collapsed at a Waffle House, striking her right forearm and causing lasting injury; she sued East Coast Waffles (ECW) for negligence.
During deposition plaintiff described ER visit and later physical therapy for the right arm; defendant’s investigation uncovered contemporaneous medical/employment records showing a workplace fall on Sept. 29, 2015 and multiple prior injury entries in employer records.
ECW says plaintiff concealed the Sept. 29 fall, omitted portions of her medical/work history and indemnity benefits, submitted medical bills already presented to her workers’ compensation carrier, and initially accepted service of a corporate subpoena on behalf of her employer.
ECW filed a renewed motion to dismiss for fraud on the court or, alternatively, for sanctions; the magistrate judge considered the record and plaintiff’s pro se response.
Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones recommended denial of ECW’s motion, finding no clear and convincing evidence of fraud on the court, no showing of willful misconduct or prejudice sufficient to justify dismissal under the court’s inherent power or Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), and that many discrepancies could be innocent (e.g., memory lapses).
Recommendation dated Jan. 29, 2021: deny ECW’s motion to dismiss or for sanctions; lesser evidentiary/preclusion rulings to be addressed later if appropriate.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiff committed "fraud on the court" warranting dismissal	Plaintiff says she has been honest and truthful; no intent to mislead	Plaintiff concealed material facts (Sept. 29 fall, workers’ comp claims, benefits, medical history) and submitted overlapping bills	Denied — no clear & convincing evidence of an unconscionable scheme or intent to defraud the court
Whether court should impose sanctions under its inherent authority (lesser than dismissal)	Plaintiff disputes bad faith; contends omissions were not willful	ECW seeks sanctions (preclusion, fees, etc.) for alleged discovery misconduct and double recovery efforts	Denied now — record shows no bad faith; some sanction requests better addressed later at evidentiary/pretrial stage
Whether dismissal is warranted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to comply with rules/orders	Plaintiff denies willful noncompliance	ECW argues plaintiff’s discovery omissions and service interference justify dismissal	Denied — ECW failed to show clear pattern of delay or willful contempt and did not identify specific violated court order
Whether plaintiff interfered with service of ECW’s Rule 30(b)(6) subpoena and consequences	Plaintiff’s response does not substantively contest facts; claims honesty	ECW points to return showing plaintiff accepted service for employer, delaying corporate deposition	Magistrate found no evidence of intent to obstruct service such that dismissal or sanctions are warranted; factual concerns can be addressed later

Key Cases Cited

Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (courts possess inherent authority to impose sanctions but must exercise it with restraint)
Purchasing Power, LLC v. Bluestem Brands, Inc., 851 F.3d 1218 (11th Cir.) (bad faith is the key to invoking a court's inherent power)
Rozier v. Ford Motor Co., 573 F.2d 1332 (5th Cir.) (fraud on the court standard — reserved for egregious misconduct)
Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115 (1st Cir.) (definition of fraud on the court: scheme to interfere with judicial ability to adjudicate fairly)
Olivas v. A Little Havana Check Cash, Inc., [citation="324 F. App'x 839"] (11th Cir.) (false sworn statements require other record evidence indicating harassing or frivolous purpose to support bad faith)
Zocaras v. Castro, 465 F.3d 479 (11th Cir.) (Rule 41(b) dismissal requires clear record of delay or willful contempt)
Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V MONADA, 432 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir.) (dismissal with prejudice improper absent clear record of delay and inadequate lesser sanctions)
ABF Freight Sys., Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 510 U.S. 317 (discovery serves truth-seeking role; evasive discovery undermines that function)
Malautea v. Suzuki Motor Co., 987 F.2d 1536 (11th Cir.) (discovery rules intended to promote truth-seeking)
S.E.C. v. ESM Grp., Inc., 835 F.2d 270 (11th Cir.) (fraud on the court inquiry focuses on whether the judicial process was improperly influenced)