“The Court has broad discretion in fashioning coercive remedies to ensure compliance with its orders. To that end, a person found in contempt may be, among other things, imprisoned or fined indefinitely until he complies with the orders of the court.”
How later courts described this case
- “The Court has broad discretion in fashioning coercive remedies to ensure compliance with its orders. To that end, a person found in contempt may be, among other things, imprisoned or fined indefinitely until he complies with the orders of the court.”
- Finding petitioner’s pro se status did not excuse his failure to appear and case was properly dismissed based on petitioner’s failure to appear at trial
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. 3:20-CV-00394-FDW-DSC
AMERICAN GENERAL LIFE )
INSURANCE COMPANY, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) ORDER
)
BROWN et al., )
)
Defendants. )
)
THIS MATTER is before the Court sua sponte as to the trial setting in this matter. In his
Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 23), filed on September 30, 2021, Defendant Charles J.
Brown (“Brown”), who is proceeding pro se, asserts he is “disabled and will not be able to appear
in person.” The Court has since notified the parties in its October 14, 2021 Order (Doc. No. 35)
and its December 14, 2021 Order (Doc. No. 27) that “this case will be tried before the undersigned
during the mixed trial term scheduled for January 3-21, 2022…. [T]he parties shall appear at docket
call on Monday, January 3, 2022, at 9:00 A.M. in Courtroom #5B of the Charles R. Jonas Building.
A final pretrial conference will be held immediately following docket call,” (Doc. No. 27, p. 2).
Therefore, Brown, and/or an attorney on his behalf, is required to appear for trial,
beginning with docket call on Monday, January 3, 2022, at 9:00 A.M., to present his case.
The Court now specifically warns Brown that the failure to appear could result in a finding
of judgment against him and/or in him being held in contempt of court.1 During the pretrial
1 See Meineke Car Care Centers, LLC v. ASAR Inc., LLC, 2016 WL 270310 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 20, 2016) (citing Int’l
Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 828 (1994) (“The Court has broad discretion in
fashioning coercive remedies to ensure compliance with its orders. To that end, a person found in contempt may be,
among other things, imprisoned or fined indefinitely until he complies with the orders of the court.”); see also Bauer
conference for this matter, Brown, or an attorney on his behalf, may request reasonable
accommodations, such as routine breaks, that may be possible during trial.
The Clerk is respectfully DIRECTED to send a copy of this Notice to Defendant Charles J.
Brown’s address of record.
Signed: December 15, 2021
Frank D. Whitney é
United States District Judge Ags
v. C.LR., 97 F.3d 45 (4th Cir. 1996) (Finding petitioner’s pro se status did not excuse his failure to appear and case
was properly dismissed based on petitioner’s failure to appear at trial).