Reported / Citable
Background
Carl Cannon sued Southern Mail Service for employment discrimination and sought $200,000, including back pay. SMS appeared in the case, moved to dismiss in state court, and removed the action to federal court.
After the parties submitted nonviable proposed scheduling orders, the court directed them to file a joint proposal. SMS did not submit one. It then failed to appear at a June 15, 2026 Rule 16 initial pretrial conference and at a July 9 show-cause hearing, despite warnings that sanctions could follow. SMS did not explain its absences or otherwise communicate with the court.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Mark Lane recommended that the district judge enter an interlocutory default judgment against SMS on liability as a Rule 16(f) sanction. The recommendation concluded that SMS’s repeated nonappearance and abandonment of participation after removal established a clear record of delay and contumacious, willful conduct.
The magistrate judge also found that lesser sanctions would not serve justice. Attorney’s fees were impracticable because Cannon is proceeding pro se, and SMS had not answered the complaint, leaving no pleading to strike. If the district judge adopts the recommendation, Cannon would be ordered to submit damages evidence and move for final default judgment within two weeks.
Key Takeaways
- This is a report and recommendation, not a final default judgment.
- Repeated failure to attend a pretrial conference and a show-cause hearing can support default sanctions when the party offers no explanation.
- The recommended default would establish liability only; damages would be addressed separately.
Why It Matters
The recommendation illustrates the Fifth Circuit’s demanding standard for case-ending sanctions: a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct and a finding that lesser sanctions would not suffice. A party that appears, removes a case, and then stops participating risks a liability default when its conduct prevents the case from moving forward.