Nick v. Morgan's Foods, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2001 · Civil Procedure

Updated July 29, 2026

Civil ProcedureRule 16 sanctionsADRgood faith participationFRCP 16(f)sanctionsmediationgood faith

Facts

Nick sued Morgan's Foods for sexual harassment and retaliation. The district court entered an ADR referral order requiring compliance with local ADR rules, including submission of a pre-mediation memorandum, attendance by corporate representatives with settlement authority, and good faith participation. Morgan's Foods did not submit the required memorandum and sent a representative with only $500 settlement authority, while the actual decisionmaker, in-house counsel Craig, did not attend and was only available by telephone. After the mediator reported Morgan's minimal participation, the district court sanctioned the company and its outside counsel and later imposed additional sanctions after the company filed a frivolous motion for reconsideration.

Issue

Whether the district court abused its discretion by sanctioning Morgan's Foods under Rule 16(f) and local ADR rules for failing to comply with the ADR referral order and failing to participate in good faith in mediation, including by imposing fines payable to the court and by sanctioning the party even if outside counsel was chiefly responsible.

Rule

Under Rule 16(f), when a party or its attorney fails to obey a scheduling or pretrial order, is substantially unprepared, or fails to participate in good faith in a pretrial conference, the district court may impose such sanctions as are just, including reasonable expenses and other appropriate sanctions. A court may enforce ADR referral orders issued under local rules through Rule 16(f), may impose monetary fines payable to the court, and may sanction the party, the attorney, or both. In this circuit, a party may be held responsible for the actions of its counsel, so long as the sanction is proportionate to the transgression.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a federal employment case in St. Louis, the judge entered a written mediation order incorporating local ADR rules and requiring each side to send a settlement memorandum to the mediator five days before mediation. Lakeview Distribution, LLC chose not to send any memorandum because its lawyer thought the complaint and answer already explained the issues well enough.

If the judge later sanctions Lakeview for violating the mediation order, what is the strongest basis for upholding the sanction?

Explanation. Rule 16(f) authorizes sanctions when a party or attorney fails to obey a scheduling or pretrial order. A court-ordered ADR referral that incorporates local ADR procedures qualifies as such a pretrial order, so failure to submit a required mediation memorandum can be sanctioned under Rule 16(f). The majority treated ADR compliance requirements as enforceable through Rule 16(f), not as mere suggestions.