Brown v. Columbia Sussex Corp.

Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing all but 44 out of 268 plaintiffs from instant civil rights and breach of contract case due to said plaintiffs' failure to comply with formal and informal deadlines for responding to defendant's discovery requests. Record showed that said plaintiffs missed five discovery deadlines and violated two court orders, and that plaintiff's counsel had failed to speak with majority of plaintiffs that he represented. Fact that Dist. Ct. did not expressly warned plaintiffs of potential for dismissal prior to entry of dismissal order did not require reversal where: (1) language in Ball, 2 F3d 752, that talked about need for explicit warning should only be interpreted as guideline; and (2) plaintiffs' counsel was adequately warned of potential for dismissal via multiple requests for said sanction in defendant's prior motions for issuance of sanctions and via Dist. Ct.'s observation that last granted extension was "final." Ct. also held that plaintiffs' premature notice of appeal was rendered timely when plaintiffs belatedly sought and obtained Rule 54(b) judgment from Dist. Ct.