 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Peterson v. McCawley12/29/2000
2000 Opinion No. 93
Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bonner County. Hon. Dennis E. Goff, District Judge.
Order dismissing action for failure to comply with pretrial order, reversed, and case remanded.
This personal injury action was dismissed sua sponte by the district court because the court found that the plaintiff had not timely complied with a court order to file a case status report. The Petersons appeal, asserting that the case status report was timely, and in the alternative, that even if the report was untimely, dismissal was an abuse of the district court's discretion.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This case arises out of a collision between vehicles being driven by Paul Peterson and Sarah McCawley. Paul and Barbara Peterson filed a complaint for negligence against McCawley and Lorri Ford, the owner of the vehicle that McCawley was driving. (McCawley and Ford are hereafter referred to collectively as "McCawley.") McCawley filed an answer, and a trial was scheduled for January 17, 2000.
In May 1999, the Idaho Supreme Court appointed Third District Judge Dennis E. Goff to serve as a pro tem district judge in the First Judicial District to assist with pending cases in that district during a five-day period from August 16 to August 20, 1999. Cases assigned to the pro tem judge included this case. On June 9, the pro tem judge signed an order advancing the trial date to August 16, 1999 and directing the parties to file a case status report within fourteen days from "the date of this order." The status report was to notify the court whether any party had filed bankruptcy , whether the case had been settled and, if the case was not settled, whether settlement efforts had been made and whether a judicial settlement conference would be beneficial. The order also warned: "If a party fails to timely comply with this Order, this court will impose sanctions. In addition to any other appropriate sanction this Court notifies the parties that this Court will impose the sanction of dismissal or striking the answer and entering a default judgment without further notice or hearing." Although signed on June 9 (presumably in the pro tem judge's chambers in the Third District), the order was not filed by the Bonner County court clerk until June 14. It was mailed to the parties on June 15.
A case status report was filed by McCawley on June 29 and by the Petersons on July 1. The pro tem district judge telephoned the Bonner County court clerk's office on June 30 to determine whether the parties had timely filed their case status reports. He was informed that there was a report from McCawley but none from the Petersons. On July 9, the district court issued an order sua sponte dismissing the Petersons' case because they had not complied with the order for a status report although their report was by then in the court file.
The Petersons thereafter filed a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal, together with a supporting affidavit of their attorney. The affidavit stated that the district court's order to file a status report was mailed to counsel by the court clerk on June 15, 1999, and counsel was under the impression that "the three-day mailing rule applied thereafter." The affidavit further informed the court that the attorney had mailed the Petersons' case status report to the court clerk on June 30 and that the Petersons were in agreement with the information contained in the report that had been earlier filed by McCawley. The affidavit also outlined discovery and trial preparation activity that the parties had undertaken since receipt of the pro tem district judge's order i
Page 1 2 3 Idaho Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|