 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Terry v. Sweeney9/6/2000
efferson, 677 P.2d 1361, 1367 n.6 (Colo. 1984) (en banc); Eismann v. Miller, 619 P.2d 1145, 1150 (Idaho 1980). The record reflects no effort by Terry to make any level of payment, no matter how small. It is specious to argue that, despite an almost three-year grace period, the court's sanction constituted denial of access to the courts to a plaintiff who was already physically in court and who made no apparent efforts to comply with its orders. Holding as Terry requests could be interpreted to mean that individuals of limited resources can violate court orders with impunity and suffer no consequence while those of more substantial resources shall bear the cost. This would be an equal protection issue. Or perhaps no one, regardless of means, shall bear the cost. On this point, we agree with the trial court when it stated: "If a party is allowed to disregard the orders of the court, then surely our entire justice system will fail." We find no denial of access or abuse of discretion in the trial court requiring payment of the sanction costs prior to resetting the matter for trial.
D. Dismissal
Finally, we turn to the question of the propriety of the dismissal. We stated in Mora v. Husky Oil Company, 611 P.2d 842, 846 (Wyo. 1980) (citation omitted): "Broad discretion is given to the trial court with regard to sanctions, even to the point of dismissing the action." It is well established that a court has the inherent authority to dismiss a matter on its own motion for lack of prosecution. WR v. Natrona County Department of Family Services (In re DG), 916 P.2d 991, 994 (Wyo. 1996); Randolph v. Hays, 665 P.2d 500, 503 (Wyo. 1983). Here, the trial court waited more than thirty-four months after issuance of the order of sanction and allowed two payment deadlines to pass before it granted the Renewed Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice. Even at that, the order did not issue for a full two months from the date of the filing of the Renewed Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice. We can only speculate how the trial court's evident restraint and patience might have been impacted had Terry made even the most modest effort to comply. Although dismissal is a harsh penalty, under the specific circumstances of this case, we conclude the trial court was within its inherent authority and there was no abuse of discretion.
CONCLUSION
We do not need to address the remaining issues raised by Terry, namely the worker's compensation motion in limine ruling and the request to present expert testimony, as they had relevance only in the event of a retrial.
Affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Wyoming Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|