### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT JAC KSON Jul y 20, 200 4 S es sio n DWAYNE S. BYRD, JULI E DICH TEL BYRD, J. WI LSO N ROOP, JR., Individually and as Rep resent atives of Getwell West Reside nts A ssociation; GE TW EL L W ES T R ES ID EN TS A SS OC IA TI ON , as R ep re se nt at ive s of Pr operty Owners w ithin t he A nnexed Ar ea; GER ALD D. McL EMOR E, WYNN PATTON, ROXI E BOYCE , WI LLI AM C. PORTER, HARRY GILLES PIE, WEN DEL L B. WILLIAM S, MA TTIE BO OKER , M ABL E DURHAM, GENE CUMMI NGS, J IM G AIT HER, BE RICE J OHNS ON, C A R OL E H
. N EL LU M S, an d R OB ER T E
. BU IE , In di vid ua lly an d as

R ep re se nt at ive s of

t he ir R es pe ct ive S ub di vis ion s v. C IT Y OF M EM P HI S; R IC HA R D C

. HA C KE TT , M ayorof M em ph is; MEMPHI S CIT Y COUNCIL, Co m po se d o f Pres ent Me m bers : A. D. ALIS SA ND RA TOS, BILL D AV IS, OSC ARH. ED MON DS , JR ., DR . JA MES FOR D, MIC HAE L A . H OOD S, FL ORE NC E LEF FL ER, TOM MA RS HAL L, MARY ROSE McCORMI CK, JI MMY MOORE, RI CKEY PEET E, JACK SA MM ONS , B AR BAR A S ONN ENB UR G, PA T V AN DER SC HAA F, and Reti ri ng Mem bers BI LLY HYMAN, ROBE RT B. J AMES, MI NERVA JO HNI CAN, J. O. PATTERSO N, JR., an d WI LLI AM GIB BONS

An Appeal f

romthe Chancer y Court for Shelby Cou nty No. 95392-1 Walte r Evans, Chan cellor

No. W2003-01943-C OA-R3-C V - F iled Novem ber 15, 2004

This case involves a dismissal for fa ilure to prosec ute. I n J anuary 1988, the plaintiff re sidents filed this lawsuit against the defendant municipal officials for alleg edly enac ting an unconstitutional and
unrea sonable a nnexation ordinance. In 2003, afte r the case had been on the trial court’s docket f or fiftee n y ear s with lit tle activity , the t rial court cler k filed a motion to dismiss for lack of prose cution. I n J une 2003, the tria l court g rante d the cler k’s motion and dismiss ed the c ase

. The plaintiff
re sid e nts no w a

pp e a l. We a ff

irm, f ind ing that th e tria l c ou rt didno t abu se its dis c re tio n in dismiss ing the case

.T he cap t i o n of t he case l i st s 1 7 P l ai nt i f f s. H o wever, t he f

i rs t t wo nam ed P l ai nt i f f s, D wayne and Juli e B y rd 1 ( “ t he B y r ds” ) , ar e n ow couns el t o t he P l ai nt i f f s an d ar e n ot r eal par t i es i n i nt er es t

. T he s ui t was ori gi nal l y f i l ed whe n the B yrd s w e re law stud e n ts a n d re sid e n ts o f G e tw e ll W e st. S u b se q u e n tly, the B yrd s m o v e d o u t o f G e tw e ll W e st, but en t er ed appear anc es on beha l f of t he ot her P l ai nt i f

f s af t er t hey became l i cen s ed t o pract i ce l aw.

O n N o v e m b e r 1 4 , 1 9 9 5 , t h e trial c o u rt e n te re d a n o rd e r d ism issin g the c a se fo r la c k o f p ro se c u tio n

. 2 A pp ar ent l y , howev er , t hat order was i nadve r t ent l y en t er ed, an d t wo week s l at er t he t r i al cour t s et t hat order as i de.
-2- Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Chancer y Court is Aff irm ed

H OL L Y M. K I RBY , J. , d e li v e r e d th e o p in io n o f th e Co u rt, inw h ic h W. F RAN K C RAW FORD , P.J ., and D AVI D R. F ARMER , J ., joined.

Dw a y ne S. B yrda ndJulie D. B yrd , M e mph is, Te nn e sse e , f or theapp e llants

.
Jonathan C. Hanc oc k, As hle e B . E ll is , a ndSara Ha ll, Me mph is, Te nn e sse e , f or theapp e lle e , Ci ty of Me mph is.

OP IN ION

I n Dec ember

1987, Def

endant/Appe llee Memphis CityCouncil passed upon final r eading Or din a nc e 37 12 , w hic h p ur po rt e d to a nn e x an are a

of so uth we st M e mph is, Te nn e sse e , c omm on ly kn ow n as “Getw e ll We st. ” OnJanu ary 19 , 1 98 8, theabo ve -n a me d Pl a int if fs /A pp e llants (collec t i v el y , “P l ai n t i ffs ”) , i n d i v i d u al s an d re p re s en t at i v es o f i n d i v i d u al s l i v i n g i n t h e a n n ex ed area, 1 filed a la wsuit aga i n s t Defe ndants/Appellee s the Cityof Memphis, its May or at the time, Richar d C. H acke tt, the Me mphis Ci ty Council and the individually named membe rs of the City Council at the time (collec tively “City ”). The lawsuit sought a decla ratory judgme nt that the annexation was unconstitutional. The Plaintiffs also soug ht relief unde r the qu o wa rra nto provisions of Tenne ssee Code Annotated § 6-51-103, which allow citizens to contest an annexation that “re asonably may not be dee med nec essary

for the w elfa

re of the re sidents and prope rty owner s of the af

fec ted territory

and the municipality

as a w hole. . . .” Te nn. Code Ann. § 6-51- 103(a) (1)( A) (1998)

. On J uly 26, 1988, the trial court gr anted the Attorney Gene ral’s motion to interve ne to def end the c onstitut ionality

of the anne x ation statutes at issue. Since that date in 1988, the rec ord shows virtually no activity

in the
case

. On at lea st two occa sions, the clerk of the trial court moved to dismiss the case for lac k of prosec ution. On Dece mber 28, 1993, a fter the case had been on the court’s docket ne arly six y ear s with litt le ac tivity , the trial court entere d an orde r denying the cler k’s first motion to dism iss “upon g ood cause shown that the C lerk’s moti on to dismi ss should be denied.” After the trial court clerk filed a se cond motion to dism iss f or lac k of prose cution almost two y ear s later, on Oc tober 30, 1995, the trial court denied this second motion, ag ain on the basis that “g ood cause [was] shown that the motion shoul d be denie d.” 2T he P l ai nt i f f s cl ai m t hat t hey l at er f i l ed a Fi r s t Am ended St at ement of P r oceedi ng s , wh i ch was om i t t ed 3 f rom t he reco rd o n ap p eal

. T he P l ai nt i f f s st at ed t hat t he am end ed Stat em ent changes onl y t y p o graphical err o rs i nvo l vi ng m i si d ent i f

i cat i o n of t he p art i es ( e. g. , “ p l ai nt i f f” and “ d efend ant ”), wi t h no subst ant i ve changes. T he

ame n ded St at eme n t w as n ev er a dded t o t h e appe l l at e r ec or d.
-3- Sometime in 2003, after the c ase ha d lain fallow on the tria l court’s docket for some f ifteen y ear s, the trial court clerk filed a thi rd m otion to dismiss for lac k of prose cution. On J une 27, 2003, the trial court he ld a hearing on the matter. No transc ript of the hea ring was made . Howeve r, the appellate rec ord includes a “Statement of Proc eeding s held J une 27, 2003” ( “Statement”)

. 3 Acc ording to the Statement, the P laintiffs advised the trial court that, in the previous two instance s in which motions were f

iled by the cler k to dismi ss for lac k of prose cution, the De fe n d an ts had declined to a g ree to a trial setting, saying that they wer e not r eady for tria l. The Plaintiffs claimed that this was the basi s for the tria l court’s e arlier denial of the cler

k’s motions to di smiss. The Sta te me nt a l s o s h o w s t h a t t h e P l a i n t i f f s ar g u e d t o t h e tr i a l c o u rt t h a t , i n a n a n n e xat i o n s u i t o f t his
natur e , th e bu rd e n o f g oin g fo rw arda ndthebu rd e n o f pro of is on theDe fe nd a nts . D e sp ite the se arg uments, the trial court dismi ssed the ca se in an ora l ruling from the bench, and l ater enter ed an
or de r c on sis te nt w iththi s o ra l ruli ng . Fro m th a t or de r, thePla int if fs no w a pp e a l.
On appe al, the Plaintiffs arg ue that the tria l court er red in dismissing their case f or lac k of prosec ution because the ca se involves issues of g reat public importa nce. In addition, the Plaintiffs arg ue that the tria l court abused its discr etion beca use any delay in the prosec ution of this case wa s no t th e fa ult of thePla int if

fs . Ra the r, the y arg ue , th e failu reof thec a se to m ov e fo rw ardwa s a c tua lly the fault of the Def

endants. The P l ai n t i ff s ar gue that it was “ Def endants a nd not Plainti ffs [who] have f ailed to prosec ute this case . . . .”

A t rial court’s decision t o dismiss an ac tion for lack of prosec ution is wit hin the trial court’ s sou n d d is c r e ti o n , a n d th e d e c is io n w il l b e a f f ir me d o n ap p e a l a

b s e n t an ab u s e o f

th a t disc retion. Os ag ie v . P

e ak loa d T

e mp. Se rv s. , 91 S.W .3d 326, 329 (Tenn. Ct. A p p

. 2 0 0 2 ). An abuse of discretion has oc curr ed whe n the trial court has “a p p lied an incor rec t leg al standar d, or re ache d a decision which is ag ainst logic or re asoning that cause d an injustice to the party complaining .” Sta te v. Shuck , 9 5 3 S

. W

. 2 d 6 6 2 , 6 6 9 (T en n

. 1 9 9 7 ) ( ci t i n g Ballard v. Herzke , 924 S.W .2d 652, 661 (Tenn. 19 96 )) . T hu s, thetria l c ou rt ’s de c isi on to dis mis s for failu reto p ro se c utewi ll n ot b e re ve rs e d u nle ss th etr ia l c ourt has “a cted unr easona bly , arbitra

rily , or unconsc ionably .” H o d g es v. A t t o r n ey General , 43 S.W. 3d91 8, 92 1 ( Te nn . Ct. App . 2 00 0) . T he app e llate c ou rt is n ot p e rm itt e d “ to m e re ly su bs titute its judg ment for that of the trial c ourt.” He nry v . Goin s , 1 0 4 S. W. 3 d 4 7 5 , 4 7 9 ( T e n n

. 2 0 0 3 )

. We
are mindful, however , that the power to dismiss a case for lack of prosec ution “should be exercised sparing ly and with g reat car e.” Hodges , 43 S.W .3d at 921.

Pur su a nt t o Ru le 41 .0 2 o f the Te nn e sse e Rul e s o f C ivi l Pr oc e du re , th e tria l c ou rt ma y , o n it s own motion, dism iss a case for failure to prosecute

. Id. “This rule is nec essary to enable the court to ma na g e its ow n do c ke t, andto p ro te c t de fe nd a nts a g a ins t pl a int if fs wh o a reun wi lli ng to p ut the ir claims to the test, but determined to subject them to the continuing threat of an e ventual judg ment.” Os ag ie , 91 S.W .3d at 329.T h e c a se o f G a d d v . S ta te , N o. E1998- 00016- W C- R3- CV , 2000 W L 310262 ( T en n

. Sp. W or k er s ’ Comp. 4 M ar. 4, 20 0 0 ), ci t ed by t he P l ai nt i f f s, i s i nap p o si t e, be cause t hat case was anal y zed unde r t he special rul es of t he T e n n e sse e C la im s C o m m issio n , w h ic h ha v e no a p p lica tio n in this c a se

. -4- Th e Plain tiff

s f ir st a rg ue that th e tria l c ou rt

abu se d it s d isc re tio n indis mis sin g thec a se b ec au s e of t h e “gr ea t p u b l i c im p o rt an ce ” of t h i s ca s e. A s s u m i n g arguendo that the ca se is one of g reat public importance, thePlaintiffs have c ited to no authority indicatin g t hat such c ases a re c on sid e re d d if

fe re ntl y fr om o the r c a se s o n tria l c ou rt ’s do c ke ts. I nd e e d, it co uld be arg ue d that it is

mo re imperative that a ca se of g reat public importance be resolved i n a ti mely manner

. The re cord in this c a se sh ow s that the c a se la ng uis he d on the tria l cou rt ’s do c ke t f or ov e r f if te e n y e ars wi th l itt le
or no a c tiv ity . In a n e ff

ort to ma na g e thec ou rt ’s do c ke t, the tria l c ou rt c le rk tw ic e fi le d mo tio ns to dis mis s the c a se , on c e a ft e r six y e ars a nd a g a in a ft e r se ve n a nd a ha lf y e ars

. At oral argum ent, counsel for the Plaintiffs soug ht to explain that the case was not dismissed at the e ar l i er s tag es beca use the Plaintiffs de fer

red their rig ht to a trial at the reque st of the City . This assertion has no support in the rec ord, and the ref ore c annot be c onsidered in this appe al. Reg ardle ss, the trial court t wi ce resusc itated a c ase that was on life support, and the Plaintiffs werecertainly awa re that continued inac tion would result in dism issal. D espite this, the r ecor d shows no further eff orts by the Plaintiffs to prosecute the ir case during the ensuing eig ht y ear s. Whether or not the burde n of proof
a t tria l w ou ld h a ve be e n o n the De fe nd a nts is i rr e le va nt. It w a s th e Pla int if fs ’ b ur de n to pr os e c ute 4 their ca se. See Te nn . R. Civ. P. 41.0 2( 1) (a dd re ssi ng the“ failu reof theplaint if

f t o p ro se c ute ” his
case ). They failed to do so. Under these c ircumstance s, we find no a buse of discr etion in the trial court’s de cision to finally , fin all y , dismiss the ca se.

T h e d e c i s i o n o f

t h e tr i a l c o u rt i s a f

f i r m e d

. C o s t s o n ap p e a l ar e t o b e t a xe d t o A p p e l l a n t s J. Wils on Roo p, Jr., I nd ivi du a lly a nd a s a Re pr e se nta tiv e of Ge tw e ll Re sid e nts As so c iatio n; G e tw e ll West Residents Association, as Represe ntatives of Property Owner s within the Annexe d Are a; Geral d D. McL emo re, W y nn P att on , Rox ie Boy ce, Wi ll iam C. P ort er, HarryGi ll esp ie, W end ell B. Willia ms, Matti e B oo ke r, Ma bleDu rh a m, G e ne Cum min g s, Jim Gaith e r, B e ri c e John so n, Caro le H. Nellums, and Robert E. Buie, Indivi d u al ly and as Repr esentatives of their Respe ctive Subdivis ions; and their surety , for whic h execution may issue, if nec essary

.

___________________________________ HOLL Y M. KI RBY, JUDGE