8 Cited authorities

Young v. Gordon
330 F.3d 76 (1st Cir. 2003) Cited 172 times
Holding that “a time-specific order was not cured by subsequent compliance at [the party's] leisure”
Tower Ventures, Inc. v. City of Westfield
296 F.3d 43 (1st Cir. 2002) Cited 154 times
Holding that dismissal with prejudice was warranted as a sanction for the plaintiff's violation of the court's scheduling orders, even if the defendants were not prejudiced by noncompliance, because the plaintiff repeatedly missed court-imposed deadlines without sufficient explanation
Jones v. Winnepesaukee Realty
990 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1993) Cited 178 times
Affirming monetary sanctions imposed on plaintiffs and detailing their failures to comply with a number of court orders
Rosario-Diaz v. Gonzalez
140 F.3d 312 (1st Cir. 1998) Cited 148 times
Holding that case management-related decisions are generally reviewed for an abuse of discretion
Figueroa Ruiz v. Alegria
896 F.2d 645 (1st Cir. 1990) Cited 177 times
Finding that district court need not consider lesser sanctions where a party is "guilty not only of simple delay but of disobedience of a court order as well"
Robson v. Hallenbeck
81 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1996) Cited 91 times
Denying defendants' appeal of the district court's denial of their motion to dismiss, judgment on the pleadings, and for summary judgment, stating "[t]he denial of the defendants' motion is not independently appealable as a final order."
Cosme Nieves v. Deshler
826 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1987) Cited 79 times
No. 86-2032. Heard May 8, 1987. August 14, 1987. Samuel C. Vazquez Matias with whom Hector L. Marquez, San Juan, P.R. was on brief for appellants. Fidel A. Sevillano Del Rio, Asst. U.S. Atty., with whom Daniel F. Lopez Romo, U.S. Atty., Hato Rey, P.R., was on brief for appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. Before BREYER and TORRUELLA, Circuit Judges, and CAFFREY, Senior District Judge. Of the District of Massachusetts, sitting by designation. TORRUELLA
Top Entertainment Inc. v. Ortega
285 F.3d 115 (1st Cir. 2002) Cited 29 times
In Top Entm't Inc. v. Ortega, 285 F.3d 115 (1st Cir. 2002), this court addressed plaintiffs' appeal from that dismissal for failure to comply with the Initial Scheduling Order.

Harden Manufacturing Corporation v. Pfizer, Inc. et al

8 Cited authorities

Holding that “a time-specific order was not cured by subsequent compliance at [the party's] leisure”

Holding that dismissal with prejudice was warranted as a sanction for the plaintiff's violation of the court's scheduling orders, even if the defendants were not prejudiced by noncompliance, because the plaintiff repeatedly missed court-imposed deadlines without sufficient explanation

Affirming monetary sanctions imposed on plaintiffs and detailing their failures to comply with a number of court orders

Holding that case management-related decisions are generally reviewed for an abuse of discretion

Finding that district court need not consider lesser sanctions where a party is "guilty not only of simple delay but of disobedience of a court order as well"

Denying defendants' appeal of the district court's denial of their motion to dismiss, judgment on the pleadings, and for summary judgment, stating "[t]he denial of the defendants' motion is not independently appealable as a final order."

In Top Entm't Inc. v. Ortega, 285 F.3d 115 (1st Cir. 2002), this court addressed plaintiffs' appeal from that dismissal for failure to comply with the Initial Scheduling Order.