Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a court to dismiss a case where the plaintiff fails to comply with discovery. In Florer v. Ford Motor, 9th Circuit, No. 24-2591 (unpublished) Florer sued Ford for violations of the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act. The district court dismissed the case when Florer failed to appear for his deposition.
“The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing as a sanction Florer’s action after Florer failed to comply with the district court’s discovery orders, including orders to appear for his deposition. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2) (permitting dismissal of an action where a party has failed to comply with court’s discovery orders); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (permitting dismissal of an action “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order”); Applied Underwriters, 913 F.3d at 890-91 (setting forth five factors to be considered before dismissing under Rule 41(b)); In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226, 1233 (9th Cir. 2006) (discussing five factors that courts must weigh in determining whether to dismiss under Rule 37(b) and explaining that “Rule 37 sanctions, including dismissal, may be imposed where the violation is due to willfulness, bad faith, or fault of the party” and that “[d]isobedient conduct not shown to be outside the litigant’s control meets this standard” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).”