unwillingness to participate in this litigation. Here, Hai Yun’s conduct in failing to obey court orders is clearly willful and has resulted in significant delay of this proceeding. The Court gave Hai Yun multiple opportunities to cure its deficiencies, and to show cause as to why sanctions should not be imposed and it has failed to do so. Furthermore, the fact that the entry of default against Hai Yun has not inspired its cooperation in this suit suggests that lesser sanctions are insufficient to gain Hai Yun’s compliance with this Court’s rules and orders. Several federal courts have held .that dismissal of an action with prejudice is an appropriate sanction for conduct similar to that exhibited by the Defendant in this ease. See, e.g., Royal Palace Hotel Assoc., 178 F.R.D. 588 (<HOLDING>);. Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of
holding that a district court judgment is not a final judgment appealable by the defendant unless it includes the final adjudication and the final sentence holding that sanctions including striking plaintiffs pleadings entering judgment for defendant and dismissing plaintiffs counterclaim were proper under the federal rules of civil procedure and local rules where plaintiff failed to file its final pretrial  statement by specified date as required by court scheduling order failed to file a motion requesting an extension of time to prepare and file final pretrial statement and where counsel failed to appear at the final pretrial conference holding that we will not review under any standard the pretrial denial of a motion for summary judgment after a full trial and final judgment on the merits holding that the plaintiffs motion for extension of time to file appeal qualified as a notice of appeal because it met the requirements of rule 4 of the federal rules of appellate procedure holding that it is proper to dismiss an appellants appeal for failure to file a brief or request an extension within the time allotted by the bankruptcy rules