Opinion ID: 1685556
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Whether dismissal was appropriate given the procedural posture of this case.

Text: ¶ 47. Jennings raises a number of additional arguments why Rule 41(b) dismissal was inappropriate. Jennings contends that there is no Rule 41(b) dismissal case from Mississippi in which a plaintiff attempted to move the case forward by filing additional discovery requests or a motion for trial setting, and then faced dismissal for failure to prosecute. ¶ 48. The procedural posture of this case is unique. However, there have been prior cases before this Court and the Court of Appeals in which Rule 41(b) dismissals were granted in the lower court even after the plaintiff tried to advance the case. Miss. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Helton, 741 So.2d 240, 241 (Miss.1999) (motion to dismiss filed on the date of trial); Lone Star, 796 So.2d at 1032 (motion to dismiss filed in response to plaintiff's motion to substitute counsel). In both Helton and Lone Star, the lower court's Rule 41(b) dismissal ultimately was reversed on appeal. Helton, 741 So.2d at 241; Lone Star, 796 So.2d at 1033. However, the timing of the Rule 41(b) motions was not a basis for reversal in those cases. See id. ¶ 49. Jennings also submits that there is no Mississippi case in which a dismissal for failure to prosecute was granted during the trial. In this case, the chancellor granted dismissal for failure to prosecute after Jennings had presented his case-in-chief. Jennings correctly points out that involuntary dismissal is not appropriate where the merits of a case have been considered. Wallace, 572 So.2d at 376. However, in denying Peggy's pre-trial motion to dismiss, the chancellor had reserved the right to dismiss the case later if he found that the delay had prejudiced Peggy. ¶ 50. Jennings argues further that it would be incongruous for the plaintiff to have taken the first action toward having the matter set for trial and then reward the defendant for her failure to do so. Yet the responsibility to prosecute a case rests with the plaintiff, not the defendant. See Miss. R. Civ. P. 41(b). ¶ 51. While a fine balance must be struck between the interests of having a case tried on the merits and the interests of judicial economy, we find that the chancellor did not abuse his discretion in dismissing this case.