 | Review waiting, please be patient.
This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 4,444 pending submissions waiting for review.
Where to get help
How to improve a draft
You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article. Improving your odds of a speedy review To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags. Editor resources
Reviewer tools
|
Terminating sanctions (also referred to as "case terminating sanctions") are a legal procedure by which a judge may dispose of a party's case (by dismissal or default judgment) for certain misconduct by the party or the party's attorney.[1] Often imposed in the discovery phase of a case, this action is considered an extreme and unusual step that is reserved for egregious or repeated misbehavior before the court.[2] Other situations in which a judge might impose terminating sanctions include a party's destruction of evidence or repeated bad faith litigation tactics.[3]
Examples in US law
editCalifornia Civil Code, Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030 provides that a court "may impose a terminating sanction" in certain situations related to discovery in civil cases.[4] The court may strike a pleading (or a portion of a pleading), stay the case, dismiss the case, or enter a default judgment against a party that engages in misuse of the discovery process.[4]
In federal courts, discovery sanctions are governed by Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.[5] Although the phrase "terminating sanctions" is not used, the potential actions a judge may take under Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(iii)-(vi) are the same types of sanctions described above under California law (i.e., striking of pleadings, granting a stay, dismissal, or default judgment).[5] In a case applying the standards of Rule 37, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a district court's ruling that dismissal of claims made by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was proper because the agency had been "engaging in dramatic abuse of the discovery process."[6]
In addition to statutory authority, courts have the inherent power to sanction bad faith or abusive litigation tactics.[7] In the case of Leon v. IDX Systems Corp., the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court's dismissal sanction after it found that the plaintiff had "despoiled evidence by deleting 2,200 files from his [company-issued] laptop computer during the pendency of the litigation."[7]
References
edit- ↑ Brooks, Alan (2016-05-03). "The Sanction of Dismissal – A Terminating Sanction". ILS. Retrieved 2026-03-26.
- ↑ "Case Terminating Sanctions: A Lesson about Inappropriate Conduct". www.americanbar.org. Archived from the original on 2024-02-22. Retrieved 2026-03-26.
- ↑ "Terminating Sanctions in Law: Definition and Practice". UpCounsel. Retrieved 2026-03-27.
- 1 2 "California Code, Code of Civil Procedure - CCP § 2023.030". FindLaw. Retrieved 2026-03-27.
- 1 2 "Rule 37. Failure to Make Disclosures or to Cooperate in Discovery; Sanctions". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2026-03-27.
- ↑ "Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Brown, 70 F.4th 1331 (11th Cir. 2023)" (PDF). Retrieved 2026-03-27.
- 1 2 "Leon v. IDX Systems Corporation, 464 F.3d 951 (9th Cir. 2006)". Justia Law. Retrieved 2026-03-27.
 | This law-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by adding missing information. |