Title: Glatter v. American Nat. Bank of Powell

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

Glatter v. American Nat. Bank of Powell1984 WY 17675 P.2d 642Case Number: 83-150, 83-151Decided: 02/03/1984GEORGE T. GLATTER AND JOANNE R. GLATTER, D/B/A PINECO TREE SERVICE, APPELLANTS (PLAINTIFFS),

v.

AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK OF POWELL, POWELL, WYOMING, APPELLEE (DEFENDANT).

AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK OF POWELL, POWELL, WYOMING, APPELLANT (DEFENDANT),

v.

GEORGE T. GLATTER AND JOANNE R. GLATTER, D/B/A PINECO TREE SERVICE, APPELLEES (PLAINTIFFS).

Supreme Court of Wyoming
GEORGE T. GLATTER AND 
JOANNE R. GLATTER, D/B/A PINECO TREE SERVICE, APPELLANTS 
(PLAINTIFFS),

v.

AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK OF 
POWELL, POWELL, WYOMING, APPELLEE 
(DEFENDANT).

AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK OF 
POWELL, POWELL, WYOMING, APPELLANT 
(DEFENDANT),

v.

GEORGE T. GLATTER AND 
JOANNE R. GLATTER, D/B/A PINECO TREE SERVICE, APPELLEES 
(PLAINTIFFS).

Appeal from the District 
Court, ParkCounty, Robert B. Ranck, 
J.

Joseph E. 
Darrah, Powell, for appellants in No. 
83-150 and appellees in No. 83-151.

Ross D. 
Copenhaver of Copenhaver & Kahl, Powell, for appellee in No. 83-150 and appellant in 
No. 83-151.

Before ROONEY, C.J., and THOMAS, ROSE, BROWN and 
CARDINE, JJ.

CARDINE, 
Justice.

[¶1.]     These appeals are from 
an order dismissing with prejudice the complaint of plaintiffs and counterclaim 
of defendant for failure of the attorneys for the respective parties to file 
their pretrial memorandums with the clerk of court three days prior to the 
pretrial.

[¶2.]     We need consider only 
the following issue:

Was the dismissal with 
prejudice by the court, on its own motion, permissible under Rule 41(b)(2), 
W.R.C.P.1

[¶3.]     This case, pending in 
the District Court, Fifth Judicial District, Park 
County, Wyoming, was filed November 
1, 1982 and thereafter assigned for trial to the district court judge of the 
Ninth Judicial District who resides at Teton County, Wyoming. On February 7, 1983, this judge 
entered an order setting pretrial conference at Cody, Park County, Wyoming, for July 1, 1983. This Order for 
Pretrial Conference stated that:

"* * * [C]ounsel are 
alerted that the provisions of Rule 4, Uniform Rules District Courts of the 
State of Wyoming are incorporated herein by reference. * 
*"

Both attorneys 
and both judges accepted the Uniform Rules for the District Courts of the State 
of Wyoming as governing this pretrial in 
ParkCounty. Rule 4 of these 
Uniform Rules2 and the order providing for 
pretrial state that attorneys should prepare a pretrial memorandum and file the 
same with the clerk of district court three days before the pretrial 
conference.

[¶4.]     A few days before the 
pretrial in this case, the judge began calling the clerk of court at ParkCounty asking if the pretrial conference 
memorandums had been filed. He learned that defendant had filed a pretrial 
memorandum on June 29 (two days before the pretrial) and that plaintiffs had not 
filed a pretrial memorandum at all. Thus, there was a failure on the part of 
both plaintiffs' and defendant's attorneys to comply with the requirements of 
Rule 4, supra, in that neither of them had filed his pretrial memorandum three 
days before the date set for pretrial. The judge, nevertheless, traveled to Park 
County, Wyoming; and, when the attorneys for the respective parties arrived at 
the court's chambers at the time set for the pretrial conference, he advised 
them that the case was dismissed with prejudice for failure to file the pretrial 
memorandums as required by Rule 4 and by his Order for Pretrial Conference which 
incorporated the provisions of Rule 4.

[¶5.]     Following entry of the 
Order dismissing the case with prejudice, both plaintiffs' attorney and the 
District Court Judge, resident in Park County, Wyoming, filed affidavits stating 
that although the standard form pretrial order and Rule 4 required filing of 
pretrial memorandums three days before the pretrial, it was nevertheless the 
local practice in the Fifth Judicial District that pretrial memorandums be filed 
on the date of the pretrial. Plaintiffs have appealed from the Order dismissing 
their complaint and defendant from the same Order dismissing its counterclaim. 
This litigation concerns substantial rights of the plaintiffs and defendant. The 
dismissal of this case imposes upon them the most severe of penalties, which 
ought to be assessed only in the most extreme situations.

[¶6.]     This court has 
recognized a strong public policy which favors disposition of cases on their 
merits. Gaudina v. Haberman, Wyo., 
644 P.2d 159 (1982). We also recognize a policy that furthers prompt and 
diligent prosecution of cases and control of the court's docket. While the 
latter is also a desirable policy, it is not involved here. This case had been 
pending just eight months; there was extensive discovery; five depositions had 
been taken; there were numerous motions pending to be heard; and there is no 
indication of delay or a failure of the attorneys to comply with court rules or 
act otherwise than in good faith. Under circumstances such as those present 
here, the action of the trial court has been held too drastic. Meeker v. 
Rizley, 324 F.2d 269 (10th Cir. 1963).

[¶7.]     The attorneys here did 
not file their pretrial memorandums three days before pretrial as required by 
Rule 4, supra, and the court felt it could not proceed with the pretrial 
because, as the trial judge stated in his Order of 
dismissal,

"This Court customarily 
reviews the Pretrial Memorandums and makes notes; picks out dates for completion 
of discovery; identification of exhibits and listing of additional witnesses and 
a trial date prior to the pretrial conference * *."

The failure to 
file the pretrial memorandums, then, in the court's view, resulted in delay and 
thus a failure to proceed with due diligence, in violation of Rule 41(b)(2), 
supra. Where the court determines upon its own motion, as in this case, that 
dismissal should result, the dismissal under this rule may not be with 
prejudice. The penalty for violation of the rule permits only that the case may 
be dismissed without prejudice. We 
have said that,

"* * * The remedy of 
involuntary dismissal * * * rests within the sound discretion of the trial 
court.

"* * * Involuntary 
dismissal requires a weighing of circumstances and judicial policies." Gaudina v. Haberman, supra at 169-170. 
See also, Johnson v. Bd. of Comm'rs of 
Laramie Cty., Wyo., 588 P.2d 237 
(1978).

[¶8.]     We recognize the 
court's inherent power to discipline counsel for a failure to comply with its 
pretrial conference order. Ordinarily that discipline should involve lesser 
sanctions than dismissal of the case, such as taxation of costs or some other 
penalty. 9 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 2369, p. 
196. We do not believe the court acted impulsively here, but rather, as visiting 
judge, there was a misunderstanding concerning the local pretrial practice in 
the Fifth Judicial District pursuant to which attorneys filed their memorandums 
on the day of the pretrial. The record does not disclose that either counsel 
acted in bad faith, nor for delay, nor engaged in dilatory tactics, nor 
intentionally refused to comply with a lawful order of the court. To allow 
dismissal of this case, in our view, would be an abuse of discretion under the 
circumstances. See, Stoyer v. Doctors 
Hospital, Inc., 15 Ariz. App. 255, 488 P.2d 191 (1971). The 
court's Order dismissing this case with prejudice, therefore, is reversed; and, 
upon remand, such Order shall be vacated, the case reinstated, the parties shall 
file their pretrial memorandums with the clerk of court and the case set for 
pretrial.

FOOTNOTES

1 Rule 41(b)(2), W.R.C.P., 
provides:

"Upon its own motion the 
court may dismiss without prejudice any action not prosecuted or brought to 
trial with due diligence."

2 Rule 4, Uniform Rules 
for the District Courts of the State of Wyoming, provides, in part, as 
follows:

"(b) * * * Prior to 
pretrial, attorneys should:

* * * * * 
*

"(7) Prepare a pretrial 
memorandum, file and deliver to other counsel three (3) days before conference."