Douglas Estrada v. Speno & Cohen, 244 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2001). · Go Syfert
Search
Douglas Estrada v. Speno & Cohen, 244 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2001). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
60 citation events (60 in the last 25 years) across 10 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: (PC) Cortinas v. Soltanian, No. 2:20-cv-01067 (E.D. Cal. June 14, 2023)
Treatment trajectory · 2001 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2001 2013 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 1057 Sufficiency of judicial warning regarding sanctions15 citing cases[W]e have held that a judge’s warning to a party 18 that a future failure to obey a court order will result in default judgment can itself suffice to meet 19 the consideration of alternatives requirement.2 citing courts put it this way
  • (PC) Cortinas v. Soltanian, No. 2:20-cv-01067 (E.D. Cal. June 14, 2023).
    ([W]e have held that a judge’s warning to a party 18 that a future failure to obey a court order will result in default judgment can itself suffice to meet 19 the consideration of alternatives requirement.)
  • Vang, No. 1:22-cv-00300 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2026).
    A “[w]arning that failure to 2 obey a court order will result in dismissal can itself meet the ‘consideration of alternatives’ 3 requirement.” Estrada v. Speno & Cohen, 244 F.3d 1050, 1057 (9th Cir. 2001); Malone, 833 F.2d 4 at 132-33 . 5…
  • Eric Rene Ortiz v. CRST Expedited, Inc., No. 5:24-cv-02605 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2025).
    Warning the 16 petitioner that failure to obey a court order will result in dismissal “can itself 17 suffice to meet the ‘consideration of alternatives’ requirement.” Estrada v. Speno 18 & Cohen, 244 F.3d 1050, 1057 (9th Cir. 2001). 19 Her…
  • (PC) Womack v. Gibbons, No. 1:19-cv-00615 (E.D. Cal. May 9, 2025).
    A “[w]arning that failure to obey a 8 court order will result in dismissal can itself meet the ‘consideration of alternatives’ requirement.” 9 Estrada v. Speno & Cohen, 244 F.3d 1050, 1057 (9th Cir. 2001); Malone, 833 F.2d at 132–33; 10 Ad…
  • Zhicheng Zhang v. Ur M. Jaddou, No. 2:23-cv-04054 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2024).
    (a warning that failure to obey a court order will result in UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 23-4054 PA (MARx)
  • Cruz v. United States Parcel Serv., No. 3:23-cv-00430 (S.D. Cal. June 24, 2024).
    A “judge’s warning to a party that a future failure to obey a court order will result 10 in default judgment can itself suffice to meet the ‘consideration of alternatives’ 11 requirement.” Estrada v. Speno & Cohen, 244 F.3d 1050, 1057 (9th…
  • (PC) Thurston v. Kokor, No. 1:22-cv-00636 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2023).
    A “[w]arning that failure to obey a 19 court order will result in dismissal can itself meet the ‘consideration of alternatives’ requirement.” 20 Estrada v. Speno & Cohen, 244 F.3d 1050, 1057 (9th Cir. 2001); Malone, 833 F.2d at 132–33; 21…
  • (PC) Womack v. Gibbons, No. 1:19-cv-00615 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2021).
    A “[w]arning that failure to obey a court order will result in 26 dismissal can itself meet the ‘consideration of alternatives’ requirement.” Estrada v. Speno & Cohen, 27 244 F.3d 1050, 1057 (9th Cir. 2001); Malone, 833 F.2d at 132–33; Adr…
  • Jesus Rivera v. Neil McDowell, No. 5:20-cv-01385 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2021).
    Warning the petitioner that failure to obey a 15] court order will result in dismissal ‘“‘can itself suffice to meet the ‘consideration of 16| alternatives’ requirement.” Estrada v. Speno & Cohen, 244 F.3d 1050, 1057 (9th Cir. 2001). 18 In…
  • Garrison v. Ringgold, No. 3:19-cv-00244 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2020).
    A “[w]arning that failure to obey a court order will result 2 in dismissal can itself meet the ‘consideration of alternatives’ requirement.” Estrada v. 3 Speno & Cohen, 244 F.3d 1050, 1057 (9th Cir. 2001); Malone, 833 F.2d at 132–33; 4 Adr…
Show 5 more citing cases
At page 1056 Reviewing district court's decision to deny default judgment12 citing cases[W]e have held that a judge’s warning to a party that a future failure to obey a court order will result in a default judgment can itself suffice to meet the ‘consideration of alternatives’ requirement.1 citing court put it this way
  • United States v. Bayley, No. 24-812 (9th Cir. July 10, 2025).unpublished
    We review a district court’s default judgment order for an abuse of discretion and will overturn its decision only if we have “a definite and firm conviction that it was clearly outside the acceptable range of sanctions.” Estrada v. Speno…
  • Casitas a Footwear Co. v. Lbsecond, Inc., No. 18-56651 (9th Cir. Apr. 9, 2020).unpublished
    Dist., 727 F.3d 950, 954 (9th Cir. 2013); Estrada v. Speno & Cohen, 244 F.3d 1050, 1056 (9th Cir. 2001).
  • Toyrrific, LLC v. Edvin Karapetian, No. 16-56580 (9th Cir. Aug. 30, 2018).unpublished 3 cites
    This “does not satisfy the type of explicit discussion of alternative sanctions our precedent demands.” Estrada v. Speno & Cohen, 244 F.3d 1050, 1056 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Malone, 833 F.2d at 132 ; see also Hamilton Copper & Steel Corp.…
  • New Show Studios, LLC v. Greg Howe, 696 F. App'x 271 (9th Cir. 2017).unpublished
    Estrada v. Speno & Cohen, 244 F.3d 1050, 1056 (9th Cir. 2001).
  • Hi-Tec Sports USA, Inc. v. Stoller, 212 F. App'x 625 (9th Cir. 2006).unpublished
    We review for abuse of discretion, see Estrada v. Speno & Cohen, 244 F.3d 1050, 1056 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm.
  • ARCO Env't Remediation, L.L.C v. RDM Multi-Enter., Inc., 166 F. App'x 929 (9th Cir. 2006).unpublished
    The district court did not abuse its discretion, Estrada v. Speno & Cohen, 244 F.3d 1050, 1056 (9th Cir.2001), in entering a default judgment in favor of ARCO.
  • Teters v. Aguirre, 114 F. App'x 946 (9th Cir. 2004).unpublished
    We review for abuse of discretion the decision to deny default judgment, Estrada v. Speno & Cohen, 244 F.3d 1050, 1056 (9th Cir.2001), and review de novo a sua sponte dismissal, Omar v. Sear-Land Service, Inc., 813 F.2d 986 , 990.
  • Nostalgia Network, Inc. v. Rayle, 56 F. App'x 344 (9th Cir. 2003).unpublished
    Cf. Estrada, 244 F.3d at 1056; Payne v. Exxon Corp., 121 F.3d 503, 508 (9th Cir. 1997); Yusov v. Yusef, 892 F.2d 784 , 787 (9th Cir.1989); see also Adriana Int’l Corp. v. Thoeren, 913 F.2d 1406, 1412 (9th Cir.1990). 1 AFFIRMED.
  • Magarian v. Monarch Life Ins., 25 F. App'x 618 (9th Cir. 2002).unpublished 2 cites
    In fact, “there are circum stances where such a discussion would be superfluous or unnecessary.” Estrada v. Speno & Cohen, 244 F.3d 1050, 1057 (9th Cir.2001).
  • In re Marcos Alonzo Nieto & Hildy Jean Ortiz (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2012).unpublished
    See Estrada v. Speno & 18 Cohen, 244 F.3d 1050, 1056 (9th Cir. 2001).
Show 2 more citing cases
  • Marro v. Globe Corp., 285 F. App'x 495 (9th Cir. 2008).unpublished
    See Estrada v. Speno & Cohen, 244 F.3d 1050, 1056 (9th Cir.2001).
  • Cooper v. Marylind Found., 25 F. App'x 596 (9th Cir. 2001).unpublished 2 cites
    ([W]e have held that a judge’s warning to a party that a future failure to obey a court order will result in a default judgment can itself suffice to meet the ‘consideration of alternatives’ requirement.)
At page 1058 Consequences of failure to appear at legal proceedings4 citing casesfailure to appear at depositions and court hearings1 citing court put it this way · 3 listed here
At page 1060 Undermining good faith through disregard of court directives3 citing cases
  • Aldapa v. Fowler Packing Co., No. 1:15-cv-00420 (E.D. Cal. June 22, 2021).
    There is no doubt that Plaintiffs would not accept the situation if the situation were 11 reversed and Defendants were refusing to produce such individuals for deposition. 12 Further, as Defendants argue it is unfairly prejudicial to Defen…
  • Held, No. 1:22-cv-00137 (D. Mont. May 6, 2026).
    See Estrada v. Speno & Cohen, 244 F.3d 1050, 1060 (9th Cir. 2001).
  • Held, No. 1:24-cv-00075 (D. Mont. May 6, 2026).
    See Estrada v. Speno & Cohen, 244 F.3d 1050, 1060 (9th Cir. 2001).
At page 1059 Sanctioning for failure to comply with discovery obligations2 citing cases
  • Marquez v. Foley, 224 F. App'x 695 (9th Cir. 2007).unpublished
    Here, the district court acted within its discretion when it entered default judgment on the issue of liability as a sanction for Foley’s repeated failure to comply with his discovery obligations because that failure “interfere[d] with the…
  • Tech. Recycling Corp. v. City of Taylor, 186 F. App'x 624 (6th Cir. 2006).unpublished 2 cites
    Yet, given several opportunities . . . they still never provided it. 4 Accord Estrada v. Speno & Cohen, 244 F.3d 1050, 1059 (“As in Hammond Packing . . . , Speno’s refusal to submit to a deposition, as well as Speno’s and Cohen’s refusal t…
At page 1052 cited at this page1 citing case
  • (PC) Mills v. Cuellar, No. 1:20-cv-01247 (E.D. Cal. May 24, 2021).
    Cal. Feb. 19, 2016) (citing 9 | Estrada v. Speno & Cohen, 244 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir. 2001). 10 Based upon a review of the complaint and the undersigned’s experience in similar cases, the 11 | undersigned finds the likelihood of resolvin…
At page 1055 cited at this page1 citing case
  • Raya v. Calbiotech, No. 3:18-cv-02643 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2019).
    Striking an untimely answer or entering default judgment 12 as a sanction is justified only where a party has exhibited “willfulness, bad faith, or fault.” 13 McCabe, 827 F.2d at 640 ; Estrada v. Speno & Cohen, 244 F.3d 1050, 1055 (9th Cir…
Other citing cases2 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Douglas Estrada
v.
Speno & Cohen, Attorneys at Law Sarah Speno David B. Cohen,defendants-Appellants
99-56013.
Docket on CourtListener (RECAP)
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Mar 30, 2001.
Published opinion
244 F.3d 1050
2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2580
2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 5225
Cited by 40 opinions  |  Published

244 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2001)

DOUGLAS ESTRADA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
SPENO & COHEN, Attorneys at Law; SARAH SPENO; DAVID B. COHEN,Defendants-Appellants.

No. 99-56013

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Argued and Submitted February 6, 2001--Pasadena, California
Filed March 30, 2001

1

NOTE: SEE NEW OPINION OF MAY 24, 2001.