Rulings in an Immigration Case, Court's Sanction, and Default Judgment

By FindLaw Staff on February 25, 2010 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

The First Circuit dealt with a contract matter, an immigration case and a case involving a district court's dismissal as a sanction upon a party for discovery related matters.

In Indigo Am., Inc. v. Big Impressions, LLC, the court vacated and remanded district court's entry of default against the defendant in a breach of contract case. 

Under the factors set forth in KPS & Assocs., the court found that defendant 's default was not willful, setting it aside would not prejudice plaintiff and that defendant met its burden of showing a meritorious defense.  Having analyzed under the factors, the court concluded that the default must be set aside as district court's ruling contained no explanation as to why it denied the motion.

In Castro-Soto v. Holder, the court faced a petitioner's challenge to the BIA's denial of his request for adjustment of status based on his illegal entry into the US in 2005.

In affirming the decision of BIA, the court rejected petitioner's claim that his I-130 petition filed in 1992 provided grandfathered status, as his first marriage ended in divorce, he fully exercied his right to have his condition removed and obtained all of the benefit based on the 1992 petition.

Lastly, in Garcia-Perez v. Hosp. Metropolitano, the court faced plaintiff's challenge to the dismissal of the case for non-compliance with discovery deadlines.

In vacating the dismissal, the court concluded that the district court never clearly communicated a deadline for providing expert reports or notice to plaintiff that failing to do so could result in dismissal.  Thus, although the court did not condone plaintiff's lengthy and unjustified delay in producing the expert reports, it found that the court's participation in the delay rendered the sanction of dismissal an abuse of discretion.

Copied to clipboard