Title: CALAWAY v JONES

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

N o . 80-241 I N THE SUPREME COURT O F T H E STATE O F MONTANA 1981 TIMOTHY J. C A L A W A Y , P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, VS. SID JONES, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of 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 of Cascade. Honorable H. W i l l i a m Coder, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Randono & Donovan, Great F a l l s , Montana For Respondent: Marra, Wenz, Johnson & Hopkins, G r e a t F a l l s , Montana Filed: Submitted on b r i e f s : December 11, 1980 Decided: MAR 4 - 1981 I / 4 v Y Clerk Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. T h i s is an appeal by t h e d e f e n d a n t from t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s r e f u s a l t o set a s i d e a judgment i n favor of t h e p l a i n t i f f and a d i s m i s s a l of d e f e n d a n t ' s c o u n t e r c l a i m i n t h e Eighth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Cascade County. On December 5 , 1972, Timothy J. Calaway f i l e d a complaint a g a i n s t S i d J o n e s s e e k i n g damages f o r t h e l o s s of a p o t a t o c r o p a l l e g e d l y caused by J o n e s ' s f a i l u r e t o p r o v i d e an i r r i g a t i o n system. J o n e s denied any r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e l o s s and f i l e d a c o u n t e r c l a i m a l l e g i n g sums due and owing from Calaway. J o n e s a l s o f i l e d a t h i r d p a r t y c o m p l a i n t s e e k i n g b o t h a f f i r m a t i v e r e l i e f and i n d e m n i f i c a t i o n a g a i n s t P a r k e r I r r i g a t i o n S u p p l y , I n c . , Sinpson Timber Company and B. F. Goodrich Company. On May 12, 1977, Simpson Timber Company moved t o d i s m i s s t h e t h i r d p a r t y complaint f o r want of p r o s e c u t i o n . The remaining t h i r d p a r t y d e f e n d a n t s l a t e r joined i n t h e motion. Following a h e a r i n g , t h e motion was g r a n t e d by t h e D i s t r i c t Court on June 7, 1977. J o n e s appealed t h e o r d e r of d i s m i s s a l t o t h i s Court. W e a f f i r m e d t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s o r d e r on June 28, 1978, f i n d i n g t h a t J o n e s had f a i l e d t o t a k e any s i g n i f i c a n t a c t i o n towards a f i n a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e c a s e a s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by h i s f a i l u r e t o t i m e l y respond t o i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s and appear a t a scheduled d e p o s i t i o n . See Calaway v. J o n e s ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 177 Mont. 516, 582 P.2d 756. Following t h i s C o u r t ' s a f f i r m a t i o n of t h e d i s m i s s a l of J o n e s ' s t h i r d p a r t y complaint, George N. McCabe f i l e d a motion t o withdraw a s a t t o r n e y of r e c o r d f o r Jones. T h i s motion was g r a n t e d by t h e D i s t r i c t Court on November 2 , A f t e r w a i t i n g e i g h t months f o r J o n e s t o s e c u r e s u b s t i t u t e c o u n s e l , Calaway, on August 1, 1979, f i l e d a "Notice t o Appoint Counsel o r Appear i n Person" and a "Notice of Readiness f o r T r i a l . " Both n o t i c e s had been served on Jones by t h e Cascade County s h e r i f f on J u l y 21, 1979. On August 6 , 1979, t h e D i s t r i c t Court i s s u e d an o r d e r f o r p r e t r i a l conference and d i r e c t e d t h a t c o p i e s of t h e same be s e n t t o t h e r e s p e c t i v e counsel f o r t h e p a r t i e s . Included i n t h e o r d e r was t h e f o l l o w i n g p r o v i s i o n : "That i n e v e n t of a f a i l u r e of a p a r t y o r p a r t i e s t o appear, p u r s u a n t t o t h i s Order, an e x p a r t e h e a r i n g s h a l l be h e l d and a n a p p r o p r i a t e Judgment rendered o r d i s m i s s a l o r d e r e d , u n l e s s c o n t i n u e d , p u r s u a n t t o r e q u e s t made a t l e a s t 48 hours i n advance, f o r good c a u s e shown." J o n e s ' s copy of t h e o r d e r was s e n t t o h i s p r e v i o u s counsel of r e c o r d , George McCabe, even though McCabe had withdrawn with c o u r t approval some n i n e months e a r l i e r . McCabe, upon r e c e i v i n g t h e o r d e r , s t a t e s he forwarded it t o J o n e s by o r d i n a r y m a i l , t o g e t h e r w i t h a carbon copy of a l e t t e r s e n t t o t h e d i s t r i c t judge who s i g n e d t h e o r d e r and a n o t e s u g g e s t i n g t h a t Jones c o n t a c t an a t t o r n e y . The l e t t e r McCabe s e n t t o t h e d i s t r i c t judge was d a t e d August 20, 1979. I t s t a t e d t h a t McCabe had withdrawn a s J o n e s ' s a t t o r n e y of r e c o r d and t h a t he was sending a copy of t h e o r d e r f o r p r e t r i a l conference d i r e c t l y t o J o n e s . McCabe f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e o r d e r and accompanying l e t t e r would have been mailed by h i s s e c r e t a r y a s a m a t t e r of r o u t i n e . J o n e s d e n i e s having r e c e i v e d any correspondence from McCabe or a copy of t h e o r d e r f o r p r e t r i a l conference. J o n e s f a i l e d t o appear a t t h e September 27, 1979, p r e t r i a l conference. A s a r e s u l t of t h i s f a i l u r e , t h e D i s t r i c t Court, on October 1, 1979, i s s u e d an o r d e r of judgment i n favor of Calaway and an o r d e r of d i s m i s s a l of J o n e s ' s counterclaim. The judgment was f o r $10,379.23, t o g e t h e r w i t h c o s t s and i n t e r e s t a t a r a t e of 6 p e r c e n t per annum from September 1, 1971. On November 15, 1979, Jones moved t h e D i s t r i c t Court f o r an o r d e r s e t t i n g a s i d e t h e judgment and d i s m i s s a l of h i s counterclaim. Following a h e a r i n g , t h e D i s t r i c t Court denied t h e motion on May 1 6 , 1980. J o n e s now a p p e a l s . The i s s u e p r e s e n t e d f o r r e v i e w is w h e t h e r t h e D i s t r i c t Court abused its d i s c r e t i o n i n denying t h e motion t o set a s i d e t h e judgment and o r d e r of d i s m i s s a l . The s o l e f a c t p r e s e n t e d t o move t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e t r i a l c o u r t was a c o n t e n t i o n by J o n e s t h a t he f a i l e d t o r e c e i v e any n o t i c e of t h e scheduled p r e t r i a l conference. E n t e r i n g a d e f a u l t judgment o r d i s m i s s a l w i t h p r e j u d i c e is a d r a s t i c s a n c t i o n t o impose a s a remedy f o r f a i l i n g t o a t t e n d a p r e t r i a l conference. Consequently, t h e t r i a l c o u r t should o n l y r e s o r t t o such a remedy i n extreme s i t u a t i o n s where t h e r e is a c l e a r r e c o r d of c o n t i n u a l d e l a y , abuse and d i s r e g a r d of t h e c o u r t ' s a u t h o r i t y by t h e e r r a n t p a r t y . See S i l a s v. S e a r s , Roebuck & Co., I n c . ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 7 8 ) , 586 F.2d 382; Link v. Wabash R a i l r o a d Company ( 1 9 6 2 ) , 370 U.S. 626, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734, reh. d e n i e d 371 U.S. 873, 83 S.Ct. 115, 9 L.Ed.2d 112. T h r o u g h o u t t h i s a c t i o n J o n e s h a s d i s p l a y e d a n a t t i t u d e of unresponsiveness. Such a t t i t u d e is evidenced by J o n e s ' s f a i l u r e t o t i m e l y respond t o i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s ; t o appear a t d e p o s i t i o n s ; and i n h i s f a i l u r e t o seek s u b s t i t u t e counsel f o r more t h a n e i g h t months a f t e r h i s f i r s t a t t o r n e y had withdrawn. Based upon t h i s d i s r e g a r d of t h e j u d i c i a l p r o c e s s and an a p p a r e n t i n c l i n a t i o n t o d e l a y t h e t i m e l y r e s o l u t i o n of t h i s a c t i o n , t h e D i s t r i c t Court would have been w i t h i n t h e p e r m i s s i b l e range of d i s c r e t i o n i n imposing s a n c t i o n s of d e f a u l t and d i s m i s s a l f o r f a i l i n g t o a t t e n d t h e p r e t r i a l c o n f e r e n c e i f J o n e s r e c e i v e d n o t i c e o f t h e c o n f e r e n c e and h i s r e q u i r e d a t t e n d a n c e . The evidence concerning t h e n o t i c e was c o n f l i c t i n g . I n reviewing t h e submitted r e c o r d , however, i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o Calaway a s t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y and i n r e l a t i o n t o J o n e s ' s c o n t i n u a l unresponsive a t t i t u d e , we conclude t h e r e is s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o s u p p o r t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g t h a t Jones r e c e i v e d i n f o r m a t i o n concerning t h e t i m e and p l a c e of t h e p r e t r i a l conference. W e f i n d no abuse of d i s c r e t i o n . The judgment i n f a v o r of Calaway and t h e d i s m i s s a l of J o n e s ' s c o u n t e r c l a i m a s e n t e r e d by t h e D i s t r i c t Court a r e hereby a f f i r m e d . W e concur: p e n + % Chief J u s t i c e 4