Third Circuit: Dismissal Sanction Subject to Less Stringent Test Post-Trial | Practical Law

Third Circuit: Dismissal Sanction Subject to Less Stringent Test Post-Trial | Practical Law

The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in Knoll v. City of Allentown, held that its usual test for dismissal of a case as a sanction before trial on the merits does not apply post-trial.

Third Circuit: Dismissal Sanction Subject to Less Stringent Test Post-Trial

Practical Law Legal Update 8-524-4225 (Approx. 3 pages)

Third Circuit: Dismissal Sanction Subject to Less Stringent Test Post-Trial

by PLC Litigation
Published on 25 Feb 2013 • USA (National/Federal)
The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in Knoll v. City of Allentown, held that its usual test for dismissal of a case as a sanction before trial on the merits does not apply post-trial.
On February 21, 2013, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an opinion in Knoll v. City of Allentown, holding that the six-factor test it devised for dismissal of a case as a sanction before trial does not apply post-trial.
After a jury verdict for the defendant, the plaintiff moved the district court for a new trial. However, she failed to comply with the district court's local rule requiring her to order a trial transcript or show good cause for not doing so. The district court denied the plaintiff's motion for a new trial in part because of her noncompliance with the local rule. The plaintiff moved for reconsideration, but the district court denied her motion because of her noncompliance with the local rule and because the motion was frivolous.
The Third Circuit affirmed. The court reiterated that dismissal is a harsh sanction to be used as a last resort. But it held that after trial a district court need not apply the six-factor test from its 1984 decision in Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. before dismissing. The Poulis factors include:
  • Whether the noncompliant party was personally responsible.
  • Whether the adversary was prejudiced by the noncompliance.
  • Whether there was a history of dilatoriness.
  • Whether the noncompliance was willful or in bad faith.
  • Whether sanctions other dismissal could be effective.
  • The meritoriousness of the claim or defense.
The Third Circuit has applied Poulis in cases where the district court dismissed for procedural failings like failure to respond to discovery or failure to prosecute. But in those cases the underlying concern was that dismissal as a sanction before adjudication on the merits deprives a party of its day in court. This concern does not apply after a decision on the merits, so the Third Circuit declined to require district courts to consider the Poulis factors post-trial. The Third Circuit added that if an attorney makes errors post-trial, the harm to the party is mitigated because its claims have been heard on the merits.
Here, the plaintiff was notified of her noncompliance with the district court's local rule, had ample time to comply and did not give any reason for the noncompliance. The Third Circuit held that the district court was within its discretion to dismiss the plaintiff's post-trial motions.
Counsel should take away from this case that procedural rules and court orders must be obeyed even post-trial. Dismissal or denial may be levied as a sanction for noncompliance post-trial more easily than before trial.
Court documents: