means of determining what discovery sanction is just,” but rather “a way for a district judge to think about what to do.” Valley Engineers, Inc. v. Electric Eng’g Co., 158 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir.1998). 1. Extraordinary Circumstances “Dismissal under a court’s inherent powers is justified in extreme circumstances.” Id. In the Ninth Circuit, “extraordinary circumstances exist where there is a pattern of disregard for Court orders and deceptive litigation tactics that threaten to interfere with the rightful decision of a case.” See Advantacare Health Partners, LP v. Access IV, No. C 03-04496 JF, 2004 WL 1837997 at *5 (N.D.Cal. Aug.17, 2004) (Fogel, J.) (citing Halaco, 843 F.2d at 381). See also Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Natural Beverage Distributors, 69 F.3d 337, 348 (9th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); Wyle v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 709 F.2d
holding that federal law applies because judicial estoppel relates to protection of the integrity of the federal judicial process holding that it is not holding that it is well settled that there is no constitutional right to an appeal recognizing that it is well settled law that an action is commenced by the service of a summons and without valid service of process the trial court has no jurisdiction to act holding that it is well settled that dismissal is warranted where  a party has engaged deliberately in deceptive practices that undermine the integrity of judicial proceedings