## Facts

- Phillip R. Sanders, a Union Pacific employee, sued Union Pacific under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) for a work-related back injury.
- The district court set a trial date and issued a detailed pretrial preparation order requiring timely submission of materials such as a proposed pretrial order, stipulated jury instructions, and exhibit-related documents.
- The pretrial order expressly warned that failure to comply could result in sanctions up to and including dismissal.
- Sanders’s counsel failed to comply with almost all required pretrial submissions and did not request a continuance or seek relief from the deadlines before the pretrial conference.
- Union Pacific’s counsel attempted in advance to obtain Sanders’s counsel’s cooperation and reminded him of the pretrial requirements.
- Following the pretrial conference, the district court dismissed the action with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to comply with the pretrial order.
- The district court denied Sanders’s post-judgment motion for relief under Rule 60(b).
- Sanders appealed both the dismissal and the denial of Rule 60(b) relief.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the case with prejudice under Rule 41(b) as a sanction for failure to comply with the pretrial preparation order.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying relief from judgment under Rule 60(b).

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the Rule 41(b) dismissal with prejudice.
- The court applied the circuit’s five-factor framework for dismissal sanctions, giving significant weight to prejudice to the defendant and the efficacy of lesser sanctions.
- The court held Union Pacific was prejudiced because Sanders’s near-total pretrial noncompliance impaired Union Pacific’s ability to prepare for a looming trial and disrupted required joint pretrial submissions.
- The court concluded the district court reasonably determined that lesser sanctions would not cure the prejudice or repair the breakdown in pretrial preparation given the timing and extent of noncompliance.
- The court rejected the argument that due process required an additional, specific warning that dismissal was imminent, reasoning that the express dismissal warning in the pretrial order and Rule 41(b) provided sufficient notice.
- The Ninth Circuit also affirmed denial of Rule 60(b) relief, holding the asserted reasons (counsel’s other trial obligations and claimed coordination problems) did not justify setting aside the judgment.

## Legal Principles

- A district court may dismiss an action with prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with court orders, including pretrial orders.
- In reviewing a Rule 41(b) dismissal, courts weigh: (1) expeditious resolution, (2) docket management, (3) prejudice to the defendant, (4) policy favoring merits decisions, and (5) availability of less drastic sanctions.
- Prejudice may be shown where noncompliance with pretrial obligations impairs the opponent’s trial preparation, particularly on the eve of trial.
- Explicit sanction warnings in a pretrial order, together with Rule 41(b), can satisfy notice requirements for dismissal; an additional last-minute warning is not necessarily required.
- Rule 60(b) relief is discretionary and requires a sufficient showing (such as excusable neglect); routine scheduling conflicts or lack of diligence by counsel generally do not warrant vacating a sanction dismissal.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld dismissal with prejudice as a permissible Rule 41(b) sanction where plaintiff’s counsel largely ignored pretrial-order obligations, thereby prejudicing the defendant’s trial preparation, and it affirmed denial of Rule 60(b) relief because the proffered explanations did not justify reopening the judgment.


Sanders v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 154 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 1998)