 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Padilla v. Estate of Tomas S. Griego2/17/1992
traction of litigation, preserve judicial integrity, and promote the orderly processing of cases. Dismissal, in some instances, is necessary to maintain these interests. Each time the court's orders are disregarded, the administration of Justice suffers because the court's time is misused to accommodate the noncomplying party's dilatoriness at the expense of the other party and all other litigants awaiting the court's attention. A continuing failure to sanction may be perceived by the noncomplying party and other litigants as a green light to flaunt court orders.
Id. at 867 (citation omitted).
The record in this case gives us no reason to consider a limitation on the general rule binding a party to the conduct of its attorney. The affidavits of Martha Griego and Emma Griego (personal representative of the Estate), which they submitted in support of the motion to set aside the summary judgment, stated that they had not been informed of pertinent events in the case. Emma Griego's affidavit also stated that (1) Lance Bailey (an attorney of record for Defendants) told her that he thought Lee Deschamps (who entered an appearance in the probate matter but not in this case) had taken care of the matter, and (2) Deschamps told her, "I dropped the ball." The affidavits, however, fail to set forth fully the relationship of the Griegos with their attorneys, such as any attempts by the Griegos in the seven months prior to judgment to keep apprised of the course of the litigation. This lapse is of particular interest in light of the affidavit of Padilla's attorney, which states that Bailey told him that (1) he thought he had been fired in the fall of 1988 as a result of a dispute over his bill, (2) he gave the Griegos a copy of their file at that time, and (3) Deschamps had told him that he had given the Griegos a copy of his file in the fall of 1988 and closed his office file.
The record in this case shows that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Defendants had failed to establish adequate grounds under Rule 1-060(B) to set aside the summary judgment.
III. CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, we affirm the summary judgment entered by the district court. No costs are awarded.
ALARID, C.J., and MINZNER, J., concur.
|