Title: BRYMERSKI v CITY OF GREAT FALLS

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

N o . 81-108 I N T H E SUPREME C O U R T O F T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A 1981 JOHN BRYMERSKI AND ALICE BRYMI3RSK1, P l a i n t i f f s and Appellants, CITY O F G R E A T FALLS, a municipal corp. of t h e S t a t e of Montana, T H O M A S C. MATHER, SHIRLEY R. PAPPIN, Personal Repre- s e n t a t i v e o f t h e E s t a t e of Robert F. Pappin, Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: District Court o f t h e Eighth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County o f Cascade, The Honorable J o e l G. Roth, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For Appellant: Dzivi, Conklin & Nybo, G r e a t F a l l s , Montana For Respondent: Smith, B a i l l i e & Walsh, Great F a l l s , Montana Swanberg, Koby, Swanberg & Matteucci, Great F a l l s , Montana Alexander & Baucus, Great F a l l s , Montana David Gliko, Great F a l l s , Montana Submitted on B r i e f s : September 3 , 1981 Decided: m 2 5 1 f i F i l e d : l!4ov 2 5 1981 M r . Chief J u s t i c e Frank I. H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . T h i s is an a p p e a l by p l a i n t i f f s from an o r d e r of t h e E i g h t h J u d i c i a l District Court g r a n t i n g d e f e n d a n t s 1 motion t o d i s m i s s t h e p l a i n t i f f s 1 a c t i o n f o r f a i l u r e to p r o s e c u t e . W e r e v e r s e . Between t h e summer of 1975 and t h e summer of 1976, d e f e n d a n t s Robert and S h i r l e y Pappin and Thomas Mather ( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o as Pappin/Mather) were r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n of streets, t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n of c u r b s and g u t t e r s , and t h e excava- t i o n of s o i l n e a r t h e l o c a t i o n of t h e p l a i n t i f f s 1 r e s i d e n c e i n t h e West H i l l A d d i t i o n t o t h e C i t y of Great F a l l s , Montana. During June and J u l y of 1976, heavy r a i n f a l l s washed mud and f i l l d i r t from a " f i l l " area c r e a t e d by Pappin/Mather i n t o t h e p l a i n t i f f s 1 yard and basement c a u s i n g damage to t h e p l a i n t i f f s 1 p r o p e r t y . The p l a i n t i f f s f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t a g a i n s t t h e d e f e n d a n t s on J u l y 1 4 , 1976, seeking damages f o r n e g l i g e n c e and f o r breach of a w r i t t e n agreement between Pappin/Mather and t h e C i t y of Great F a l l s . On August 3 , 1976, d e f e n d a n t s Pappin/Mather f i l e d a motion t o d i s m i s s , and a h e a r i n g w a s scheduled f o r September 1 5 , 1976, t o h e a r oral arguments on t h e motion. There is nothing i n t h e r e c o r d to i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e District Court r u l e d on t h i s motion. On October 8, 1976, Pappin/Mather f i l e d an answer, and on October 12 t h e y f i l e d w r i t t e n i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s . On November 1 5 , t h e C i t y of Great F a l l s f i l e d c o n s o l i d a t e d m o t i o n s to d i s m i s s , to make more d e f i n i t e and c e r t a i n and to s t r i k e . O r a l arguments on t h e s e motions were set f o r December 1 5 , b u t it does n o t a p p e a r t h a t t h e s e motions were r u l e d on by t h e D i s t r i c t Court. Nothing f u r t h e r w a s f i l e d i n r e g a r d to t h i s a c t i o n u n t i l May 1 6 , 1980. I n J a n u a r y , 1979 , John McCarvel , t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' a t t o r n e y , became a judge and s h o r t l y t h e r e a f t e r he advised t h e p l a i n t i f f s to f i n d a new a t t o r n e y . I n February of t h a t y e a r , t h e p l a i n t i f f s c o n t a c t e d W i l l i a m Conklin and asked him t o r e p r e s e n t them. M r . Conklin informed t h e p l a i n t i f f s on March 6 t h a t he would t a k e t h e i r case, and he d i d some p r e l i m i n a r y r e s e a r c h d u r i n g March and A p r i l . H e was unable t o f i n d t i m e to f u r t h e r proceed w i t h t h e c a s e , however, u n t i l May, 1980; and d u r i n g t h e i n t e r i m p e r i o d one of t h e d e f e n d a n t s , Robert P a p p i n , d i e d . On May 1 6 , 1980, p l a i n t i f f s f i l e d a document t o s u b s t i t u t e c o u n s e l and a motion to s u b s t i t u t e S h i r l e y R. Pappin, p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of t h e estate of Robert F. Pappin, f o r Robert Pappin as a p a r t y d e f e n d a n t . The D i s t r i c t Court g r a n t e d t h e motion on May 29, 1980. Then i n June p l a i n t i f f s f i l e d answers to t h e Pappin/Mather i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s of 1976 and served w r i t t e n i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s on d e f e n d a n t s Pappin/Mather and d e f e n d a n t C i t y of G r e a t F a l l s . I n September, ~ a p p i n / M a t h e r f i l e d t h e i r answers to p l a i n t i f f s ' i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s and also f i l e d a motion to d i s m i s s f o r f a i l u r e to p r o s e c u t e . A f t e r t h e motion to d i s m i s s was f i l e d , t h e p l a i n t i f f s deposed s e v e r a l i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h knowledge of f a c t s p e r t i n e n t to t h e case. On November 1 0 , a h e a r i n g was h e l d on t h e Pappin/Mather motion t o d i s m i s s f o r f a i l u r e t o p r o s e c u t e . A t t h e h e a r i n g t h e C i t y of Great F a l l s o r a l l y j o i n e d i n t h e motion. On January 9 , 1981, t h e D i s t r i c t Court i s s u e d an o r d e r g r a n t i n g t h e motion to d i s m i s s , and t h e p l a i n t i f f s a p p e a l . The p l a i n t i f f s raise t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s on a p p e a l : 1. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n n o t c o n s i d e r i n g t h e s t a t u t o r y time p e r i o d set f o r t h i n Rule 4 1 ( e ) , M.R.Civ.P., when making its d e c i s i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e motion to d i s m i s s f o r f a i l u r e to p r o s e c u t e . 2. Whether t h e District Court abused its d i s c r e t i o n i n g r a n t i n g t h e motion t o d i s m i s s f o r f a i l u r e to p r o s e c u t e as t h e f a i l u r e to a c t i v e l y p r o s e c u t e t h e case was due to i n a c t i o n on t h e p a r t of p l a i n t i f £ s f a t t o r n e y s . 3 . Whether t h e ~ i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n g r a n t i n g t h e motion t o d i s m i s s f o r f a i l u r e t o p r o s e c u t e as t h e case was being a c t i v e l y p r o s e c u t e d f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h r e e and one-ha1 f months p r i o r to t h e time t h e motion to d i s m i s s was f i l e d . 4. Whether t h e p l a i n t i f f s were e n t i t l e d to r e l y on t h e local District Court custom of g i v i n g n o t i c e b e f o r e d i s m i s s i n g i n a c t i v e cases. 5. Whether t h e District Court e r r e d i n g r a n t i n g t h e motion to d i s m i s s f o r l a c k of p r o s e c u t i o n as t h e n o t i c e r e c e i v e d b y t h e p l a i n t i f f s to a p p o i n t new c o u n s e l was n o t g i v e n i n t h e s p e c i f i c manner p r e s c r i b e d by t h e local c o u r t r u l e . 6. Whether t h e District Court e r r e d i n r e f u s i n g to admit c e r t a i n of p l a i n t i f f s f e x h i b i t s i n t o e v i d e n c e a t t h e h e a r i n g on t h e motion to d i s m i s s f o r f a i l u r e to p r o s e c u t e . W e f i n d t h a t o n l y t h e t h i r d i s s u e needs to be addressed i n r e a c h i n g a d e c i s i o n i n t h i s case. The r u l e of c i v i l procedure which governs t h e d i s m i s s a l of a n a c t i o n f o r f a i l u r e t o p r o s e c u t e is Rule 4 1 ( b ) , M.R.Civ.P. It p r o v i d e s i n p a r t as f o l l o w s : "For f a i l u r e of t h e p l a i n t i f f to p r o s e c u t e . . . a d e f e n d a n t may move f o r d i s m i s s a l of an a c t i o n II . . . I n Montana t h e l a w is w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t an a c t i o n may be d i s m i s s e d f o r f a i l u r e of t h e p l a i n t i f f to p r o s e c u t e i f t h e a c t i o n is n o t p r o s e c u t e d w i t h due d i l i g e n c e , a b s e n t a s u f f i c i e n t showing of excuse. Calaway v. J o n e s ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 177 Mont. 516, 582 p.2d 756, and cases c i t e d t h e r e i n . I t is a l s o w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d i n Montana l a w t h a t it is w i t h i n t h e sound d i s c r e t i o n of t h e t r i a l c o u r t to d i s m i s s an a c t i o n f o r f a i l u r e of t h e p l a i n t i f f to p r o s e c u t e . Calaway, s u p r a , and cases t h e r e i n c i t e d . W e a g r e e w i t h t h e Colorado Court o f Appeals, however, i n t h a t " [ t h e t r i a l c o u r t f s ] d i s c r e t i o n is n o t w i t h o u t bounds . . . and it must be borne i n mind t h a t c o u r t s ' e x i s t p r i m a r i l y to a f f o r d a forum to s e t t l e l i t i g a b l e matters between d i s p u t i n g p a r t i e s . " F a r b e r v. Green Shoe Mfg. Co. ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 42 Colo.App. 255, 596 P.2d 398, c i t i n g Mizar v. Jones ( 1 9 6 5 ) 157 C O ~ O . 535, 403 P.2d 767. I n t h i s case t h e p l a i n t i f f s had been a c t i v e l y p r o s e c u t i n g t h e i r case f o r o v e r t h r e e and one-half months p r i o r to t h e t i m e t h e d e f e n d a n t s Pappin/Mather f i l e d t h e i r motion to d i s m i s s f o r f a i l u r e to p r o s e c u t e . W e a d o p t t h e r u l e t h a t a motion to d i s m i s s f o r f a i l u r e to p r o s e c u t e w i l l n o t be g r a n t e d i f t h e p l a i n t i f f is d i l i g e n t l y pro- s e c u t i n g h i s claim a t t h e t i m e t h e motion is f i l e d , even i f a t some e a r l i e r t i m e t h e p l a i n t i f f may have f a i l e d t o act w i t h due d i l i g e n c e . S u p p o r t f o r t h i s p o s i t i o n is found i n s e v e r a l j u r i s d i c - t i o n s . See F i r s t N a t i o n a l Bank of F a i r b a n k s v. T a y l o r (Alaska 1971) 488 P. 2d 1026; F a r b e r , s u p r a ; Ayers v. D. F. Q u i l l e n & Sons, I n c . ( 1 9 6 3 ) , 55 Del. 481, 188 A.2d 510; Spiegelman v. Gold Dust Texaco (1975) , 9 1 Nev. 542, 539 P.2d 1216; Rorie v. Avenue S h i p p i n g C o . (Tex.Civ.App.l967), 414 S . W . 2nd 948. I f a p l a i n t i f f h a s a c t i v e l y resumed t h e p r o s e c u t i o n of a case, t h e p o l i c y f a v o r i n g t h e r e s o l u t i o n of a c a s e on its merits is more compelling t h a n t h e p o l i c y underlying Rule 4 1 ( b ) which is to p r e v e n t unreasonable d e l a y s . W e hold t h a t t h e motion to d i s m i s s f o r f a i l u r e to prose- c u t e was u n t i m e l y i n t h i s case even though t h e d e f e n d a n t s claim t o have been a c t u a l l y p r e j u d i c e d by t h e d e l a y i n p r o s e c u t i o n due t o t h e d e a t h of d e f e n d a n t Robert Pappin d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d of t i m e p l a i n t i f f s were n o t a c t i v e l y p r o s e c u t i n g t h e case. W e n o t e f i r s t of a l l t h a t n e a r l y everyone involved i n t h e development of t h e Pappin/Mather p r o j e c t is s t i l l a v a i l a b l e to t e s t i f y , i n c l u d i n g t h e c i t y e n g i n e e r , Pappin/Matherls p r o j e c t e n g i n e e r , t h e c o n t r a c t o r ' s job s u p e r i n t e n d e n t , as w e l l as M r . Mather and Mrs. Pappin. A l s o , v a r i o u s r e c o r d s and f i l e s con- c e r n i n g t h e p r o j e c t are a v a i l a b l e as e v i d e n c e . Moreover, M r . Pappin d i e d s e v e r a l months b e f o r e t h e p l a i n t i f f s resumed a c t i v e p r o s e c u t i o n of t h i s case, and no o b j e c t i o n came from t h e defen- d a n t s u n t i l some t h r e e and one-half months a f t e r a c t i v e prosecu- t i o n had commenced. For t h e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , we r e v e r s e t h e d e c i s i o n of t h e D i s t r i c t Court and remand t h e case f o r t r i a l . Chief J u s t i c e W e concur: