## Facts

- Percy Hogan, Jr., a truck driver employed by Giant Eagle Incorporated, was injured in 2008 while unloading groceries with a power jack he alleged was manufactured by The Raymond Corporation.
- Hogan received workers’ compensation benefits from Giant and later returned to full-time work.
- In 2010, Hogan (pro se) sued Raymond (products liability) and Giant (negligence) in Pennsylvania state court.
- Hogan asserted that Giant’s conduct, including alleged mishandling or removal of the power jack, impaired his ability to pursue the products liability claim, and he sought to amend to add a spoliation-based tort theory against Giant.
- Raymond removed the case to federal court on diversity grounds, arguing Giant’s Pennsylvania citizenship should be disregarded because claims against Giant were barred by Pennsylvania’s Workers’ Compensation Act exclusivity provision.
- During discovery against Raymond, Hogan repeatedly failed to respond to discovery requests and disobeyed multiple court orders compelling responses, despite conferences held to ensure he understood his obligations.
- The district court imposed a monetary sanction (costs/fees for motion practice and future deposition costs) as an alternative to dismissal and warned multiple times that failure to pay within a specified period would result in dismissal.
- Hogan received an invoice totaling $5,504.97; the district court found he could afford to pay but refused.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the action as a sanction for repeated discovery violations and refusal to pay a monetary sanction.
2. Whether removal was proper based on diversity jurisdiction where the employer-defendant was treated as fraudulently joined due to workers’ compensation exclusivity.
3. Whether the district court correctly dismissed claims against the employer under Rule 12(b)(6) and denied leave to amend to add a spoliation-based claim.
4. Whether any part of the monetary-sanctions order required vacatur and a limited remand.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the action as a sanction, holding the district court acted within its discretion given Hogan’s repeated noncompliance, clear warnings, and refusal to pay a lesser sanction.
- The Third Circuit affirmed denial of remand, concluding the employer was fraudulently joined because the Workers’ Compensation Act exclusivity bar left no viable claim against the employer.
- The Third Circuit affirmed dismissal of claims against the employer and the denial of leave to amend as to the employer.
- The Third Circuit vacated part of one sanctions-related order and remanded for a limited purpose concerning the scope/components of the monetary sanction, without disturbing the core dismissal ruling.

## Legal Principles

- A district court may dismiss an action as a sanction for repeated discovery violations when the party disobeys discovery orders after explicit warnings and lesser sanctions have been attempted.
- Pro se status does not excuse compliance with discovery obligations and court orders; courts may consider it by ensuring the litigant understands the obligations, but continued noncompliance may still justify dismissal.
- Under Pennsylvania law, the Workers’ Compensation Act generally provides the exclusive remedy against an employer for workplace injuries, barring tort claims premised on the injury.
- For diversity jurisdiction, a nondiverse defendant may be disregarded as fraudulently joined when the plaintiff has no reasonable basis in law for a claim against that defendant; removal is then proper.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit upheld dismissal of the remaining defendant as a discovery sanction after repeated noncompliance and refusal to pay a monetary sanction, and it sustained removal and dismissal of the employer based on workers’ compensation exclusivity and fraudulent joinder, while ordering a narrow remand to correct a limited aspect of the sanctions order.


Hogan v. Raymond Corp., 536 F. App’x 207 (3d Cir. 2013)