Kyuhwan Hwang v. Jerry Quezada Arita, W2023-01703-COA-R3-CV

Kyuhwan Hwang, pro se, sued Jerry Quezada Arita and others for damages after a 2019 car accident in Tennessee state court; most defendants were dismissed after the case was removed to and then remanded from federal court.
The case was stalled in discovery, with Hwang repeatedly failing to provide proper or timely responses to Arita’s discovery requests despite multiple court-ordered extensions and warnings.
The trial court granted several motions to compel and ultimately warned Hwang that failure to comply would result in dismissal of his complaint.
After continued noncompliance and inadequate responses, the trial court dismissed the action without prejudice, inviting Hwang to move for reconsideration if he fully complied with discovery.
Hwang filed multiple post-judgment motions—including motions to alter/amend and to recuse the judge—all denied by the trial court, and then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal for discovery abuses was too harsh	Sanction was overly harsh; no willful/dilatory conduct	Hwang flouted repeated orders, justifying dismissal	Dismissal appropriate under clear record of delay
Whether judge could enter further orders while recusal motion pending	Entering order after recusal motion violated procedural rule	Order was based on prior oral ruling, so permissible	No violation; written order memorialized pre-motion oral ruling
Whether alleged judicial misconduct tainted dismissal	Judge committed misconduct or crime affecting case outcome	Allegations vague, unsupported by law or facts	Issue waived; unsupported arguments and no record citations
Whether appeal was frivolous and should warrant damages	No extreme argument regarding defense costs	Appeal is meritless; should get fees and costs	Appeal frivolous; attorney’s fees and costs awarded to appellee

Pegues v. Illinois Central Railroad Co., 288 S.W.3d 350 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008) (Dismissal as a discovery sanction is a drastic measure, reserved for clear, willful noncompliance.)
Lyle v. Exxon Corp., 746 S.W.2d 694 (Tenn. 1988) (Courts have inherent power to impose sanctions for discovery abuse.)
Holt v. Webster, 638 S.W.2d 391 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1982) (Affirmed dismissal for failure to comply with discovery orders after multiple opportunities.)
Chiozza v. Chiozza, 315 S.W.3d 482 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009) (Pro se litigants must comply with substantive and procedural legal standards.)
Bean v. Bean, 40 S.W.3d 52 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) (Appellate courts are not obligated to verify unsupported allegations in briefs.)