Richard Gravely v. Sharon L. Mullins, 17-0298

On September 14, 2016, Gravely (plaintiff) on a bicycle and Mullins (defendant) in a car were involved in an intersection accident; a police officer cited Gravely for riding the wrong way on a one-way street and found no evidence Mullins struck him.
Gravely filed a civil negligence suit the next day seeking medical and pain-and-suffering damages; Mullins denied hitting him and relied on Officer Bailes’s deposition that there was no evidence of contact.
Gravely claimed he had witnesses but refused to provide their contact information in discovery; Officer Bailes and later the municipal/circuit proceedings indicated no other witnesses were present.
Mullins served a Rule 11 sanctions letter and then filed a Rule 11 motion alleging Gravely’s complaint was frivolous; Gravely disputed procedural compliance with Rule 11 at the March 3, 2017 hearing.
The circuit court found the complaint frivolous and without evidentiary support and dismissed the suit without prejudice as a sanction under Rule 11 and the court’s inherent powers; the court denied awarding Mullins fees and costs.
The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed, relying principally on the circuit court’s inherent power to sanction serious litigation misconduct and finding no abuse of discretion.

Issue	Gravely's Argument	Mullins' Argument	Held
Whether Mullins complied with Rule 11(c)(1)(A) (21‑day safe harbor)	Gravely argued Mullins failed to give the required 21 days before filing the motion	Mullins treated the safe-harbor requirement as satisfied; substantial time elapsed before hearing	Court did not decide Rule 11 compliance as dispositive because it upheld dismissal on inherent-power grounds; no prejudice shown to Gravely
Whether dismissal as a sanction was an abuse of discretion	Gravely contended dismissal was improper and procedurally flawed	Mullins argued the suit was frivolous, lacked evidentiary support, and warranted sanction	Affirmed: dismissal without prejudice was a proper exercise of discretion under the court’s inherent authority for willful/bad‑faith litigation misconduct

Richmond American Homes of West Virginia, Inc. v. Sanders, 226 W. Va. 103, 697 S.E.2d 139 (2010) (dismissal for serious litigation misconduct may be upheld when court findings show willfulness, bad faith, or fault)
Shields v. Romine, 122 W. Va. 639, 13 S.E.2d 16 (1940) (recognizing a court’s inherent power to administer justice and regulate its proceedings)