Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
15-3495•Darryl L. Weber v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 124
15-3495Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit31.05.2017
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 16-3252
___________________________
Darryl L. Weber
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 124; Apprenticeship &
Board Members & Companies; R.F. Fisher Electric Co.; Thomas Ferman; Gavin Sealy
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
____________
Submitted: April 20, 2017
Filed: May 3, 2017
[Unpublished]
____________
Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
-- 1 of 2 --
Darryl Weber appeals after the District Court, upon motion, dismissed his1
employment action with prejudice as a sanction for failure to comply with a court
order to provide discovery responses. Weber, without explanation, failed to comply
with the court’s order to provide supplemental discovery responses, and the record
reveals other instances of Weber’s failure to cooperate in the discovery process, even
after he was given multiple opportunities to do so. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d)(1)(A)(ii)
(stating that the court may order sanctions if “a party, after being properly served with
interrogatories . . . , fails to serve its answers, objections, or written response”); see
also 37(d)(3), (b)(2)(A)(v) (explaining that sanctions may include an order dismissing
the action); 41(b) (stating that a defendant may move to dismiss if the plaintiff fails
to comply with court rules or a court order). We conclude that the District Court did
not abuse its discretion. See Smith v. Gold Dust Casino, 526 F.3d 402, 404–05 (8th
Cir. 2008) (reviewing a Rule 41(b) dismissal for an abuse of discretion); Int’l Bhd.
of Elec. Workers, Local Union No. 545 v. Hope Elec. Corp., 380 F.3d 1084, 1105
(8th Cir. 2004) (discussing appellate review of a Rule 37 sanction).
We affirm the judgment of the District Court.
______________________________
The Honorable Roseann A. Ketchmark, United States District Judge for the1
Western District of Missouri.
-2-
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.