Jamiel v. Maison Kayser@USA.com

Background

Akeel Abdul Jamiel, representing himself, sued Maison Kayser@USA.com and several individuals. The opinion states that he alleged a hostile work environment based on race and perceived sexual orientation, defamation against Abel Viveros, and wage claims against all Defendants. The opinion also states that an earlier decision had dismissed Jamiel’s Title VII claim, his defamation claim against Viveros, and his overtime-based wage claims.

Defendants served Jamiel with document requests and interrogatories on February 13, 2020. The magistrate judge ordered him several times to respond and warned that failure to comply could lead to sanctions, including dismissal. Jamiel did not provide the requested documents. He submitted incomplete, unsworn, and unsigned interrogatory responses, did not return required employment-related authorizations, and failed to attend a January 6, 2021 status conference. Defendants then filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37.

Review of the Report and Recommendation

Magistrate Judge Aaron recommended granting Defendants’ motion. Jamiel filed timely objections. The district court determined that the objections were perfunctory because they were conclusory and largely repeated earlier arguments. The court therefore reviewed the challenged portions of the report for clear error rather than conducting a fresh review.

Rule 37 Discovery Sanction

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 allows a court to impose sanctions, including dismissal, when a party fails to obey an order requiring discovery. The court considered four factors: the willfulness or explanation for the failure to comply, whether lesser sanctions would work, the length of the noncompliance, and whether the party was warned about the consequences.

The court agreed with Magistrate Judge Aaron that all four factors supported dismissal. It found that Jamiel had continually failed to produce documents and had not provided a plausible explanation. It also found that lesser sanctions would not be effective because Jamiel had shown no intention of complying with court orders, that his noncompliance had continued for more than a year, and that he had been warned three times that continued violations could result in dismissal.

Failure to Prosecute

The court also agreed that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provided an independent basis for dismissal because of Jamiel’s failure to prosecute and comply with court orders. The court stated that the relevant factors—length of delay, notice of possible dismissal, prejudice to Defendants, consideration of the court’s calendar and Jamiel’s opportunity for a hearing, and the effectiveness of lesser sanctions—supported dismissal and substantially overlapped with the Rule 37 analysis.

Disposition

Judge George B. Daniels adopted Magistrate Judge Aaron’s report, overruled Jamiel’s objections, and granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court stated that adoption of the report made an earlier motion to dismiss moot and directed the clerk to close both motions. The opinion does not state that the granted motion was granted with or without prejudice.