Case Title: Cannon v. Pritchard et al.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 534, 2003

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2004-03-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
MICHAEL J. CANNON,                       
           
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellant,   
 
v. 
 
ROBERT L. PRITCHARD and 
P.C. SUPPLIES, INC., a Delaware 
corporation, 
     
 
 
     
Defendants Below- 
Appellees. 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§
 
 
   No. 534, 2003 
 
   Court Below---Superior Court 
   of the State of Delaware, 
   in and for New Castle County  
   C.A. No. 02C-05-043 
                      
 
Submitted: January 30, 2004 
   Decided: March 26, 2004    
 
Before BERGER, STEELE and JACOBS, Justices 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 26th day of March 2004, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal and 
the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The plaintiff-appellant, Michael J. Cannon, filed an appeal from the 
Superior Court’s October 14, 2003 order dismissing his lawsuit against defendants-
appellees Robert L. Pritchard and P.C. Supplies, Inc. for failure to prosecute.  We 
find no merit to the appeal.  Accordingly, we AFFIRM. 
 
(2) 
Cannon’s lawsuit alleged that he sustained personal injuries in a May 
25, 2001 automobile accident, which was caused by Pritchard.  The case was 
scheduled for a Superior Court arbitration, and when it was not resolved at that 
 
 
-2-
level, proceeded to the trial track.  At a scheduling conference in February 2003, 
the Superior Court set trial for October 14, 2003.  According to Pritchard, the 
parties subsequently reached a settlement agreement.  Cannon, however, disputed 
that he had agreed to settle the case.  Pritchard then filed a motion in the Superior 
Court to enforce the settlement and Cannon’s attorney filed a motion to withdraw.1 
 
(3) 
On September 8, 2003, the two motions were heard by the Superior 
Court.  Cannon’s attorney’s motion to withdraw was granted and Pritchard’s 
motion to enforce the settlement was denied.  Although the record does not contain 
a transcript of the hearing, Pritchard represents that the Superior Court “cautioned 
Mr. Cannon at length about the need to be prepared to move forward.  Mr. Cannon 
was specifically advised that the trial date of October 14, 2003 would remain on 
the court’s calendar.”2  Cannon does not dispute this characterization of what 
occurred at the hearing, nor does he dispute that he did not complete his portion of 
the pretrial stipulation and did not request a continuance of the trial during the five 
weeks between the hearing on the motions and the day of trial. 
                                                 
1  It appears that, by this time, Cannon had approached another attorney regarding 
representation, but that attorney did not agree to represent Cannon at the October 14, 2003 trial.   
 
2 In addition, the Superior Court’s October 14, 2003 order of dismissal recites that 
“[Cannon] was informed that the trial date was still October 14, 2003.  [He] was told to get other 
counsel or be prepared to proceed pro se.”    
 
 
 
 
-3-
 
(4) 
In an appeal from the Superior Court’s dismissal of a case for failure 
to prosecute, this Court must determine whether the Superior Court abused its 
discretion.3  Under the circumstances presented in this case, we find no abuse of 
discretion on the part of the Superior Court.  In denying Pritchard’s motion to 
enforce the settlement, the Superior Court made clear to Cannon that the trial date 
would remain unaffected.  While Cannon apparently attempted to locate counsel to 
represent him, that attempt was made weeks before the scheduled trial date and 
was unsuccessful.  Cannon clearly was on notice that he would be required to 
proceed pro se on the trial date of October 14, 2003 or risk dismissal of his case.   
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
                                                 
3 Draper v. Medical Center of Delaware, 767 A.2d 796, 798 (Del. 2001).