Gates v. United States, 752 F.2d 516 (10th Cir. 1985). · Go Syfert
Search
Gates v. United States, 752 F.2d 516 (10th Cir. 1985). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
25 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Diaz v. Romer (ca10, 1992-04-20)
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1985 2005 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Diaz v. Romer
10th Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
In affirming the district court's Order here, we reiterate our statement in Gates v. United States, 752 F.2d 516, 517 (10th Cir.1985): "[T]he time has now come to put teeth in the tiger [of Rule 37]." 12 AFFIRMED. 1 The parties briefed the issue of whether the interlocutory Notice of Appeal, which used the names of former parties in the caption, was sufficient to confer jurisdiction.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Diaz v. Romer
10th Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
In affirming the district court’s Order here, we reiterate our statement in Gates v. United States, 752 F.2d 516, 517 (10th Cir.1985): “[T]he time has now come to put teeth in the tiger [of Rule 37].” AFFIRMED. .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Merrigan v. Affiliated Bankshares of Colorado, Inc.
1st Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
See G.J.B. & Assocs., Inc. v. Singleton, 913 F.2d 824, 825 (10th Cir.1990); Gates v. United States, 752 F.2d 516, 517 (10th Cir.1985).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Allen Payne v. General Motors Corporation (2×)
10th Cir. · 1991 · confidence medium
See Ikerd v. Lacy, 852 F.2d 1256, 1258 (10th Cir.1988) (sanction for failure to follow scheduling or pretrial order under Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(f)); Gates v. United States, 752 F.2d 516, 517 (10th Cir. 17 We review the district court's enforcement of the sanction against Payne only for an abuse of discretion.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bud Brooks Trucking, Inc. v. Bill Hodges Trucking Company, Inc.
10th Cir. · 1990 · confidence medium
But see In re Standard Metals Corp., 817 F.2d 625 , 628-29 (10th Cir.1987); Founding Church of Scientology, Inc. v. Webster, 802 F.2d 1448, 1457-59 (D.C.Cir.1986), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 871 , 108 S.Ct. 199 , 98 L.Ed.2d 150 (1987); Gates v. United States, 752 F.2d 516, 517 (10th Cir.1985).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bud Brooks Trucking, Inc. v. Bill Hodges Trucking Co.
10th Cir. · 1990 · confidence medium
But see In re Standard Metals Corp., 817 F.2d .625, 628-29 (10th Cir.1987); Founding Church of Scientology, Inc. v. Webster, 802 F.2d 1448, 1457-59 (D.C.Cir.1986), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 871 , 108 S.Ct. 199 , 98 L.Ed.2d 150 (1987); Gates v. United States, 752 F.2d 516, 517 (10th Cir.1985).
cited Cited as authority (rule) In Re Standard Metals Corporation
10th Cir. · 1987 · confidence medium
Gates v. United States, 752 F.2d 516, 517 (10th Cir.1985).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Sheftelman v. Standard Metals Corp.
10th Cir. · 1987 · confidence medium
Gates v. United States, 752 F.2d 516, 517 (10th Cir.1985).
discussed Cited "see" Diaz Cuellar v. Santiago Abrams
D.N.M. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See U.S. v. Gates, 752 F.2d 516 , 517 (10th Cir. 1985) (finding that the plaintiffs’ failure to contact their attorney in the midst of litigation was sufficient to justify dismissal for failure to appear at court-ordered deposition).
discussed Cited "see" Black v. Larimer County
10th Cir. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gates v. United States, 752 F.2d 516, 517 (10th Cir. 1985) (district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint for failure to appear at their court-ordered depositions); see also O’Neil v. Burton Grp., 559 F. App’x 719, 722 (10th Cir. 2014) (affirming dismissal for failure to appear in person for second-scheduled deposition despite plaintiff alleging he could not afford to travel from California to Utah for the deposition).
cited Cited "see" M.E.N. Co. v. Control Fluidics, Inc.
10th Cir. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gates v. United States, 752 F.2d 516, 517 (10th Cir.1985) (Rule 37 is no longer a “paper tiger”).
cited Cited "see" Co. v. Control Fluidics, Inc.
10th Cir. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gates v. United States, 752 F.2d 516, 517 (10th Cir.1985) (Rule 37 is no longer a "paper tiger").
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Jasper D. Gates and Mildred L. Gates
v.
United States of America, Robert E. Evers, Roger E. Lankford, and Gerald L. Mihlbachler, Individually and as Agents of the United States of America
82-2201.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Jan 17, 1985.
752 F.2d 516
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

752 F.2d 516

55 A.F.T.R.2d 85-666, 85-1 USTC P 9198, 1
Fed.R.Serv.3d 889

Jasper D. GATES and Mildred L. Gates, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Robert E. Evers, Roger E.
Lankford, and Gerald L. Mihlbachler, individually
and as agents of the United States of
America, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 82-2201.

United States Court of Appeals,
Tenth Circuit.

Jan. 17, 1985.

Thomas E. Cirkal of Cirkal & Sandman, Denver, Colo., for plaintiffs-appellants.

Thomas A. Gick, Washington, D.C. (Glenn L. Archer, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., with Michael L. Paup, Richard W. Perkins and Philip I. Brennan, Attys., Tax Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C.; and Robert N. Miller, U.S. Atty., Denver, Colo., of counsel, on brief), for defendants-appellees.

Before McKAY, SETH and DOYLE, Circuit Judges.

McKAY, Circuit Judge.

1

Plaintiffs filed suit for a refund of federal income taxes for the years 1971, 1972 and 1974. Count I of the complaint sought a refund of individual income taxes in the amount of $11,254.90 for 1971; Count II sought recovery of individual income taxes for 1972 in the amount of $15,717.35; Count III sought recovery of individual income taxes in the amount of $1,475 for the year 1974; Count IV sought an order setting aside a tax sale of the taxpayer's residence to satisfy delinquent taxes; and Counts V and VI sought punitive damages of one million dollars from the federal parties for garnishing the taxpayers' wages, levying on their bank accounts and seizing and selling their residence. Counts III, V and VI were dismissed on April 10, 1981, and there are no issues concerning this dismissal before the court on appeal.

2

Plaintiffs' depositions were first noticed on December 1, 1980, and again on April 16, 1982. Finally, on July 28, 1982, the court ordered that the plaintiffs' depositions be taken on August 24, 1982. At a pretrial hearing held on August 25, 1982, the district court discovered that plaintiffs had failed to appear at the court ordered depositions and dismissed their suit for failure to appear at those depositions. In addition, the court ruled that the taxpayers' claim relating to 1972 was moot and that it lacked jurisdiction to return the taxpayers' residence.

3

On September 24, 1982, counsel for the plaintiffs filed a motion to set aside the dismissal. In this motion, counsel asserted that plaintiffs must not have received notice of the deposition because the letter containing that notice was returned unclaimed. He made no explanation, by affidavit or otherwise, of why notice of the deposition was never received by the plaintiffs.

4

At the very least, the record indicates that plaintiffs, in the midst of litigation, failed to contact their attorney during a period of about sixty days. Given the burgeoning dockets of the district courts and the need to move litigation along, this type of inattention is itself sufficient to justify dismissal. In the past, Rule 37 may have been considered a paper tiger, but the time has now come to put teeth in the tiger. National Hockey League v. American Hockey Club, 427 U.S. 639, 96 S.Ct. 2778, 49 L.Ed.2d 747 (1976); Dellums v. Powell, 566 F.2d 231, 235 (D.C.Cir.1977). The only question properly before us is whether the trial court abused its discretion. We hold that it did not.

5

Because we find that the district court had ample reason to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint for failure to appear at their depositions, we need not consider the other grounds on which the court based its dismissal.

6

Plaintiff's attorney fee issue is not properly before us since the district court failed to act on plaintiff's motions.

7

AFFIRMED.