Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp.

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
123 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 1997)


Facts

Chudasama and his wife (plaintiffs) were driving a 1989 Mazda MPV minivan when they had an accident. The plaintiffs sued Mazda Motor Corp. (Mazda) (defendant) for personal injuries under theories of products liability and fraud. During discovery, the Chudasamas sought production of nearly every document Mazda had and information about virtually every Mazda employee, past or present. Many of the requests were impossibly vague. Mazda objected to nearly all requests, even if legitimate. When the court did not rule on its objections, Mazda moved to dismiss the fraud count, because it was not plead with the particularity required by Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP). The court did not rule on the motion. Mazda requested a protective order to safeguard its confidential business information from disclosure. The parties could not agree to the terms of the protective order. After a hearing, the judge granted the protective order, adopting the Chudasamas’ proposed order nearly outright. Mazda began concealing discoverable information. The plaintiffs moved to compel Mazda to comply. The court held another hearing, refused to rule on the objections or motions, and indicated that if the parties forced the court to rule, sanctions would be levied “on somebody.” After further dispute, the court granted the Chudasamas’ motion to compel and adopted the Chudasamas’ proposed sanctions order against Mazda. The court ordered that all Mazda’s pleadings be stricken, that a default judgment be entered against it, that Mazda pay the Chudasamas’ costs and attorneys’ fees, and that the protective order be vacated. Mazda appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Tjoflat, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 202,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.