Opinion ID: 1788561
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Remedy: Scheduling Orders and Conferences

Text: We caution that nothing in this opinion should be construed as an endorsement of the practices engaged in by the parties. In practice, effective case management by our court administrators should preclude cases such as these from arising. As indicated at the outset of this opinion, the court system has a keen interest, notwithstanding the wishes of the parties, to keep the wheels of justice in motion: [W]hen it comes to courthouse filings, it is necessary to draw a line between bringing a suit and merely filing a petition in order to delay deciding whether to do so. It is not appropriate to expect judicial process to wait ... while a plaintiff decides. Alvarez v. Meadow Lane Mall Ltd. Pship., 560 N.W.2d 588, 591 (Iowa 1997) (emphasis added). Trials should be scheduled shortly after the petition is filed, and parties should be required to move litigation forward. Iowa's service-of-process rule was crafted with this interest in mind:  [n]inety days was chosen in order that service would be perfected prior to the issuance of scheduling orders by most courts.  Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.302, comment. Here, there is no evidence in the district court file of a scheduling order, which we would expect to find. See id.; id. 1.602 (providing effective tools for pretrial management, including scheduling orders and conferences, which carry out several laudable goals, including [e]xpediting the disposition of the action, [e]stablishing early and continuing control so that the case will not be protracted because of lack of management, [d]iscouraging wasteful pretrial practices, [i]mproving the quality of the trial through more thorough preparation, and [f]acilitating the settlement of the case); Iowa Ct. R. 23.5, Form 1 (contemplating, in Iowa time standards for case processing, a 120 Day Notice of Civil Trial Setting Conference). Because there was no scheduling order in this case, service did not become an issue for more than a year after the petition was filed nothing happened in the file between the petition and service a year later. Trial scheduling customs vary among the eight judicial districts. It is a better practice to have the district court administrator or judge setting a trial scheduling conference approximately ninety to one hundred twenty days after the filing of the petition, even if it means only the plaintiff attends. Failing this, at the very least the district court should sua sponte direct the plaintiffs to expedite matters or face dismissal. Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.302 (If service ... is not made ... within 90 days after filing the petition, the court, upon motion or its own initiative after notice to the party filing the petition, shall dismiss the action without prejudice... or direct an alternate time or manner of service.). In any event, private agreements not to effect service should not be permitted to delay such matters for an extended length of time; at some point early in the process, the court should take hold of the case and move matters along. [2] To do otherwise permits cases to sit in the system growing whiskers, an unnecessary and most undesirable result.