 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Draper v. Medical Center of Delaware3/12/2001
ued after this Court reversed the dismissal. A simple letter to all parties, or a status conference, presumably would have been enough to prompt Kipp's re-entry of appearance following the remand. With Draper again represented by counsel, the trial court could have set a firm pre-trial and trial schedule together with whatever type of "zero tolerance" provisions that the court deemed appropriate. Instead, this case remained dormant until the prothonotary's form Rule 41(e) letter went out one year after the remand.
We do not mean to suggest that the trial court, alone, was responsible for moving this case forward after the remand. We are troubled by Kipp's failure to promptly re- enter his appearance after assuring both the trial court and this Court of his intention to do so. His explanation - that he was waiting for the trial court to enter a new scheduling order - does not offer a complete answer since, as he acknowledged, he could have requested a scheduling conference at any time. Indeed, under other circumstances, an effort by counsel to shift responsibility for the failure to prosecute a case from himself to the court would be unavailing. It is only because Draper was still formally unrepresented at the time of the remand that we focus on the need for intervention by the trial court.
It is important that this decision not be misconstrued. Litigants, whether represented by counsel or appearing pro se, must diligently prepare their cases for trial or risk dismissal for failure to prosecute. There is no different set of rules for pro se plaintiffs, and the trial court should not sacrifice the orderly and efficient administration of justice to accommodate an unrepresented plaintiff. It is only in cases such as this, where it was reasonable for the pro se litigant to have been waiting for the trial court to take action following a remand, that we find dismissal for failure to prosecute inappropriate.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the decision of the Superior Court is REVERSED and this matter is REMANDED for further action by the Superior Court in accordance with this opinion.
Page 1 2 3 Delaware Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|