Stichting Mayflower Mountain Fonds v. City of Park City , 441 F. App'x 568 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                                                          FILED
    United States Court of Appeals
    Tenth Circuit
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    October 13, 2011
    TENTH CIRCUIT                 Elisabeth A. Shumaker
    Clerk of Court
    STICHTING MAYFLOWER MOUNTAIN
    FONDS; STICHTING MAYFLOWER
    RECREATIONAL FONDS,
    Plaintiffs-Appellants,
    v.
    CITY OF PARK CITY, UTAH,
    Defendant-Appellee,
    No. 11-4017
    UNITED PARK MINES, CO.,
    (D.C. No. 2:04-CV-00925-TS)
    (D. Utah)
    Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee,
    v.
    ARIE CORNELIS BOGERD, an individual
    and citizen of Hei-en Boeicop, Netherlands;
    MAYFINANCE CV, a Netherlands
    commanditaire vennotschap; STICHTING
    BEHEER MAYFLOWER PROJECT, a
    Netherlands Foundation,
    Counterclaim-Defendants-Appellants.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
    *
    This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
    doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. It may be cited,
    however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th
    Cir. R. 32.1.
    Before TYMKOVICH, SEYMOUR, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.
    This action was filed by Stichting Mayflower Mountain Fonds and
    Stichting Mayflower Recreational Fonds (“Plaintiffs”) against the City of Park
    City, Utah (“Park City”) and United Park City Mines, Co. (“United Park”) for
    claims arising out of the annexation by Park City of certain property owned by
    Stichting Mayflower and United Park, among others. United Park filed a
    counterclaim against Plaintiffs for intentional interference with prospective
    economic relations, malicious interference with business, et al. 1 The district court
    dismissed Plaintiffs’ complaint on a variety of grounds, and declined to grant
    summary judgment to Plaintiffs on United Park’s counterclaim against them. The
    district court ultimately granted default judgment to United Park on its
    counterclaim, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2), as a sanction against Plaintiffs
    and third party defendants (collectively “Stichting”) for repetitive discovery
    violations. Stichting appeals and we affirm.
    The parties are well aware of the facts and we will not repeat them here.
    Stichting raises a number of issues that they contend require reversal of (1) the
    district court’s dismissal of their complaint, (2) the district court’s refusal to grant
    1
    United Park added Arie Cornelis Bogerd and Stichting Beheer Mayflower
    Project as third party defendants to the counterclaim.
    -2-
    summary judgment against United Park on its counterclaim, and (3) the grant of
    of default judgment against them on United Park’s counterclaim as a sanction for
    Stichting’s repeated failure to comply with discovery orders. We have thoroughly
    reviewed the briefs and relevant portions of the record, and we are not persuaded
    by any of Stichting’s arguments. We affirm on all grounds, primarily for the
    reasons stated by the district court in its various orders.
    We take particular note that Stichting filed four frivolous interlocutory
    appeals and a petition for mandamus to this court in the course of this lawsuit, in
    addition to egregiously ignoring numerous orders of the district court to respond
    properly to discovery requests. At various times over the course of several years,
    the district court described the conduct of Stichting or their counsel as follows:
    [T]here was no reason for counsel’s submission of his February 9,
    2006 letter to the Tenth Circuit’s Clerk of Court. The letter blatantly
    mischaracterizes this court’s February 6, 2006 Order, and crosses the
    line of professional advocacy. No amount or pressure by a client can
    excuse such conduct.
    D.Ct. Oct. 15, 2007 Order at 10.
    Stichting’s culpability is demonstrated by its wilful and intentional
    refusal to comply with court orders regarding immunity issues, the
    sufficiency of UPCM’s pleading, and discovery matters. Stichting
    mischaracterizes the rulings of the court as a means to ignore court
    orders and repeatedly files motions for reconsideration to delay the
    imposition of the court’s rulings. The delay resulting from
    Stichting’s intentional behavior has been substantial. . . . Stichting
    has been threatened with sanctions for years and it has had no effect
    on its willingness to comply. The court concludes that the efficacy
    of a lesser sanction is questionable given Stichting’s blatant refusals
    to participate in discovery and its propensity to obfuscate and
    -3-
    mischaracterize the requirements imposed upon it by UPCM’s
    discovery requests and the court’s orders.
    D.Ct. Nov. 3, 2009 Amended Order at 4-5.
    Stichting’s continued and repetitive challenges to every
    adverse decision entered by the court has crossed the line of
    professional advocacy in this matter. The tone of Stichting’s attacks
    is also unprofessional and inappropriate.
    D.Ct. March 30, 2010 Order at 3.
    We agree with the district court’s characterization of Stichting’s and
    counsel’s conduct in this case. Such conduct constitutes an indefensible abuse of
    the judicial process.
    This case represents at least the sixth time this year this court has had to
    affirm dismissals or default judgments resulting from intentional and repetitive
    abuses of the discovery process. See Lee v. Max Int’l, 
    638 F.3d 1318
     (10th Cir.
    2011); Freddie v. Marten Transp., Ltd., 428 F. App’x 801 (10th Cir. 2011); Gross
    v. Gen. Motors LLC, 08-3236, 
    2011 WL 4599683
     (10th Cir. Oct. 6, 2011);
    Norouzian v. Univ. of Kan. Hosp. Auth., 11-3094, 
    2011 WL 3856984
     (10th Cir.
    Aug. 31, 2011); Chi. Ins. Co. v. Hamilton, 422 F. App’x 740 (10th Cir. 2011). It
    is a sad record. These cases do not involve mere negligence or mistakes,
    confusion over retention obligations or the minutiae of metadata, but intentional
    misconduct extending over months and even years. In this case, Stichting
    violated at least five discovery orders over the course of four years before the
    district court granted default judgment against it.
    -4-
    Everyone wants to see cases resolved on their merits rather than in this
    fashion, and everyone can hope these cases represent no more than a statistical
    aberration, a bad streak, an anomaly. But they do give cause for concern.
    Concern that the ideals the discovery system seeks to serve — to enlighten and
    ensure a just resolution based on the facts — are too often being undone by those
    who would misuse discovery instead to inflict costs on opponents in order to
    extract settlements for frivolous claims, to achieve some objective altogether
    outside the litigation, or to deter those with good claims from pursuing their
    claims to a fair and just resolution on the merits before a jury.
    The Supreme Court has made clear that “the most severe in the spectrum of
    sanctions . . . must be available to the district court” to address such abuses when
    they arise. Nat’l Hockey League v. Metro. Hockey Club, Inc., 
    427 U.S. 639
    , 643
    (1976). We have recently underscored this message, making clear that no litigant
    can count on more than three chances from a district court to make good on a
    lawful discovery obligation. Lee, 
    638 F.3d at 1321
    . And this case forces us to
    repeat the unpleasant message one more time today: it is a serious and
    sanctionable wrong to employ a system designed to promote justice to inflict an
    intentional injustice instead. We can all hope there won’t be need to reiterate the
    -5-
    point yet again anytime soon.
    AFFIRMED.
    ENTERED FOR THE COURT
    PER CURIAM
    -6-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-4017

Citation Numbers: 441 F. App'x 568

Judges: Tymkovich, Seymour, Gorsuch

Filed Date: 10/13/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024