Kasalo v. Harris & Harris, Ltd.
656 F.3d 557
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Kasalo sued Harris & Harris, Ltd. for FDCPA violations related to an overdue hospital bill.
- The parties agreed Kasalo was entitled at least $1,000 in statutory damages, but the case was to be settled on the individual claim.
- Kasalo’s counsel sought to pursue class-action claims based on envelopes and payment reminders allegedly violating the FDCPA provisions.
- The district court doubted class certification but allowed limited discovery and time to develop class theories; the court never held a class certification ruling.
- Kasalo’s attorney later pursued a third class theory without timely filing a new complaint; the district court and Kasalo’s counsel faced ongoing scheduling tensions.
- At a May–June 2010 status hearing, the district court dismissed the entire case for want of prosecution, citing Albukerk’s conduct and failure to proceed with class claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal for want of prosecution was appropriate | Kasalo asserts dismissal was an abuse of discretion given merits and minimal prejudice to Harris. | Harris contends dismissal was proper due to repeated delays and lack of progress, especially on class claims. | Dismissal for want of prosecution was an abuse of discretion. |
| Whether the district court could dismiss only the class claims while preserving Kasalo's individual claim | Kasalo argues the individual claim remained meritorious and should not be swept away with class issues. | Harris contends the entire case was in jeopardy due to the unresolved class theories. | Court erred by dismissing Kasalo's individual claim; only class claims should have been addressed. |
| Whether the court should have used class-certification procedures under Rule 23 instead of Rule 41 dismissal | Kasalo maintains the court should determine class viability and consider certification rules rather than terminating the case. | Harris supports dismissal as an expedient response to unsettled class allegations. | Court should have considered Rule 23 procedures; dismissal under Rule 41 was improper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gabriel v. Hamlin, 514 F.3d 734 (7th Cir. 2008) (dismissal is an extraordinary sanction; should be avoided where possible)
- Aura Lamp & Lighting Inc. v. International Trading Corp., 325 F.3d 903 (7th Cir. 2003) (warning before dismissal; factors for dismissal)
- Ball v. City of Chicago, 2 F.3d 752 (7th Cir. 1993) (factors governing dismissal for failure to prosecute)
- Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962) (test for dismissal under civil procedure rules)
- National Hockey League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club, 427 U.S. 639 (1976) (prejudice and sanction considerations in dismissal)
- Oliver v. Gramley, 200 F.3d 465 (7th Cir. 1999) (sanctions and conduct considerations before dismissal)
- Sharif v. Wellness Int'l Network, Ltd., 376 F.3d 720 (7th Cir. 2004) (warning and procedural safeguards in dismissal)
- Cook County College Teachers Union, Local 1600 v. Byrd, 456 F.2d 882 (7th Cir. 1972) (independent obligation to decide class action certification)