Chamarra Evans v. Liberty Ins. Corp.
702 F. App'x 297
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Chamarra Evans sued Liberty Mutual after a 2015 electrical fire, alleging Liberty wrongfully refused to pay her fire-insurance claim; case was removed to the Northern District of Ohio.
- Evans was represented by Joseph Westmeyer, Jr. and Joseph Westmeyer, III; multiple discovery deadlines (July 30, Sept. 4, extended to Oct. 14) were missed without adequate explanation.
- Liberty moved to dismiss for want of prosecution after repeated missed deadlines and inadequate discovery responses; counsel provided some responses only after the motion but they were incomplete.
- The district court warned that further noncompliance would result in dismissal, extended deadlines once more, and ultimately dismissed the case with prejudice on November 30, 2016.
- Evans moved for reconsideration, citing Westmeyer Jr.’s hospitalization and reduced work capacity; the district court denied the motion, finding counsel’s illness did not excuse prolonged noncompliance and noting Westmeyer III’s lack of corrective action.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing for want of prosecution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal for want of prosecution was an abuse of discretion | Dismissal was too harsh and deprived Evans of her day in court | Dismissal was warranted because counsel repeatedly failed to comply with discovery and ignored warnings | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion |
| Whether counsel’s illness excused missed deadlines | Westmeyer Jr.’s hospitalization caused the delay and excuses noncompliance | Illness did not explain continued noncompliance or why co-counsel didn’t act | Court held illness did not excuse failures; counsel’s conduct showed reckless disregard |
| Whether the district court failed to consider lesser sanctions | Evans argued the court didn’t consider alternatives before dismissal | Liberty argued court considered lesser sanctions and concluded they would be futile | Court held it considered alternatives and permissibly concluded lesser sanctions would not have been effective |
| Whether Evans had complied with discovery at time of dismissal | Evans contended she had provided adequate responses before dismissal | Liberty showed many requests unanswered and the responses provided were inadequate and nonspecific | Court found discovery responses were inadequate and dismissal was justified |
Key Cases Cited
- Wu v. T.W. Wang, Inc., 420 F.3d 641 (6th Cir. 2005) (standard of review and definitions for dismissal for failure to prosecute)
- Schafer v. City of Defiance Police Dep’t, 529 F.3d 731 (6th Cir. 2008) (dismissal is a harsh sanction appropriate only in extreme situations of contumacious conduct)
- Knoll v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 176 F.3d 359 (6th Cir. 1999) (cases properly dismissed where there is a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct)
- Harmon v. CSX Transp., Inc., 110 F.3d 364 (6th Cir. 1997) (prejudice to the adversary includes wasted time, money, and effort pursuing required cooperation)