Vazquez-Rijos v. Anhang, 654 F.3d 122

Vázquez-Rijos sued Abraham and Barbara Anhang in Puerto Rico Superior Court asserting entitlement to part of Adam Anhang's estate under prenuptial, usufructuary, and community property laws.
Adam Anhang Uster was murdered in San Juan on September 22, 2005; FBI investigated the murder-for-hire plot that allegedly involved Vázquez and Pabón Colón.
The case was removed to the District Court for the District of Puerto Rico; service on Barbara Anhang was pursued but initially improper, with summons issued multiple times.
Vázquez repeatedly delayed, missed, or postponed depositions; the court warned of sanctions and repeatedly extended deadlines, including for service of Barbara and for deposition attendance.
In 2008–2009, after multiple extensions and motions, the district court found extreme delays, noncompliance with orders, and failure to prosecute, and dismissed the case with prejudice.
Vázquez appealed, arguing lack of abuse of discretion, contending pregnancy, criminal indictment, and Italian documents justified nonattendance; the First Circuit affirmed dismissal as not an abuse of discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the district court's dismissal for extreme misconduct an abuse of discretion?	Vázquez contends dismissals should be reserved for willful, not merely delayed, conduct.	Anhang argues repeated noncompliance and prolonged delay warranted dismissal to protect court administration and other parties.	No abuse; extreme misconduct justified dismissal.
Did pregnancy and indictment excuses justify continued noncompliance or delay?	Vázquez cites twin-pregnancy and FBI indictment as justifications for absence and nonappearance.	Court did not accept blanket excuses; allowed some flexibility but ultimately dismissal appropriate.	Excuses not sufficient to defeat sanctions; dismissal upheld.
Was failure to serve Barbara Anhang an indispensable-party issue warranting dismissal?	Barbara was indispensable; service failures prevented progression.	Repeated attempts were made; failure to join was egregious and warranted dismissal.	Yes; failure to serve indispensable party supported dismissal.
Were lesser sanctions required before dismissal?	Court should have employed lesser sanctions prior to dismissal.	Court gave multiple warnings and opportunities; lesser sanctions were insufficient given pattern of conduct.	District court acted within discretion; dismissal appropriate.

Malot v. Dorado Beach Cottages Assocs., 478 F.3d 40 (1st Cir.2007) (abuse of discretion standard for discovery sanctions)
Damiani v. R.I. Hosp., 704 F.2d 12 (1st Cir.1983) (death of case-management flexibility for sanctions)
Young v. Gordon, 330 F.3d 76 (1st Cir.2003) (scheduling orders and sanctions importance of timely compliance)
Enlace Mercantil Internacional v. Senior Indus., Inc., 848 F.2d 315 (1st Cir.1988) (discipline and sanctions to achieve orderly disposal)
Vallejo v. Santini-Padilla, 607 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.2010) (nonmerits sanctions depend on totality of circumstances)
Tower Ventures, Inc. v. City of Westfield, 296 F.3d 43 (1st Cir.2002) (scheduling orders as essential tools in case management)
Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70 (U.S. Supreme Court 1973) (Fifth Amendment privilege cannot be invoked on blanket basis)
United States v. Castro, 129 F.3d 226 (1st Cir.1997) (need for particularized inquiry into privilege assertions)
United States v. Pratt, 913 F.2d 982 (1st Cir.1990) (court must assess whether privilege is properly asserted)