Unpublished Disposition, 921 F.2d 279 (9th Cir. 1990)Annotate this Case
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Before WALLACE, O'SCANNLAIN and RYMER, Ditstrict Judges.
Berick appeals from the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute. We affirm.
* Berick contends that the district court for the Northern District of Oklahoma erred in transferring this case to the Central District of California, following a determination that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Sparcraft. We review a district court's determination that it lacks personal jurisdiction over a party de novo. See Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Portage La Prairie Mutual Insurance Co., 907 F.2d 911, 912 (9th Cir. 1990). Based upon our independent review of the record, we find that the Northern District of Oklahoma properly transferred this action to the Central District of California. See Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 478 (1985).
Berick contends that the Central District's local rule requiring local counsel violates his fifth amendment right to due process. We disagree. "The trial court, by rule or as an exercise of discretion, may require any lawyer who resides at a great distance to retain a local attorney who will be available for unscheduled meetings and hearings." Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper, 470 U.S. 274, 287 (1985). The Central District's rule requiring local counsel did not deprive Berick of due process.
Berick also claims that the requirement that he obtain (as distinguished from designate) local co-counsel was in violation of the local rules. The district court acted properly under C.D. Cal. R. 22.214.171.124, which permits the trial judge to require more than the mere designation of counsel.
Berick makes no argument in support of his further contention, that the district court should not have allowed his local counsel to withdraw, and that issue is therefore deemed abandoned. Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988).
A district court's dismissal of an action for failure to prosecute is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988). Failure to follow local rules is a proper ground for dismissal for failure to prosecute. See id. Moreover, the district court warned Berick that dismissal was imminent if he failed to appear or otherwise follow required pretrial procedures. We find no abuse of discretion here.
Berick appeals the district court's imposition of a five hundred dollar sanction for Berick's failure to appear and participate in pretrial procedures. A district court's imposition of sanctions is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See Ayers v. City of Richmond, 895 F.2d 1267, 1269 (9th Cir. 1990) (sanctions imposed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f)); see generally Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 110 S. Ct. 2447, 2461 (1990) (sanctions imposed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11). Berick repeatedly failed to abide by pretrial procedures and to follow the orders of the court. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing sanctions.
We have considered Berick's remaining contentions on appeal and find them without merit. We also find that this appeal is wholly without merit, and grant Sparcraft's request for double costs pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for submission on the record and briefs and without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a), Ninth Circuit R. 34-4
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit R. 36-3