Opinion ID: 871238
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Deliberate delay and actual prejudice

Text: A dismissal with prejudice would not constitute an abuse of discretion where a plaintiff's deliberate delay causes actual prejudice to a defendant. Anderson, 542 F.2d at 524. Although the law presumes injury from unreasonable delay, the presumption of prejudice is rebuttable upon a showing that actual prejudice did not occur. Id. The ICA in Ellis v. Harland Bartholomew and Assoc., upheld a dismissal with prejudice when plaintiff's unreasonable delays resulted in harm to the defendants. Ellis, 1 Haw. App. 420, 428, 620 P.2d 744, 749-50 (1980). In that case, a number of depositions were not taken until ten years after the complaint was filed due to numerous motions by plaintiff to delay and postpone trial, and submissions of affidavits reciting his excuses for unavailability. Id.; see also Hawaii Auto. Retail Gasoline Dealers Ass'n, Inc. v. Brodie, 2 Haw.App. 99, 101, 626 P.2d 1173, 1175 (1981) (affirming dismissal with prejudice when two years elapsed from the filing of the complaint until the matter was set for trial, defendant was not deposed until the eve of trial, and plaintiff did nothing but engage in the artful dodging of diligent prosecution.). In Anderson, a dismissal with prejudice was upheld where a plaintiff filed a complaint immediately before the running of the statute of limitations, but did not complete service of process upon all defendants until one year later. Anderson, 542 F.2d at 524. In that case, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated that the defendants who were served last in time were burdened with actual prejudice because they were denied the opportunity to adequately prepare for their defense. Id. at 525. Here, the record reveals that Blaisdell's actions bear no resemblance to the conduct of the parties whose dismissals with prejudice have been upheld. Instead, the nature of Blaisdell's Emergency Motion and his request for relief in the form of a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction suggests that he acted with some urgency, rather than unreasonable delay. Moreover, the record indicates that any delay in this case was not attributable to Blaisdell. On March 4, 2009, Blaisdell's appeal was dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction because the circuit court did not enter a final separate judgment. On March 6, 2009, and again on April 4, 2009, Blaisdell motioned the circuit court to issue a final separate judgment. When the circuit court did not enter a final separate judgment, Blaisdell filed a writ of mandamus on April 20, 2009, requesting that this court order the circuit court to enter the requisite final separate judgment. It was not until May 4, 2009, after being ordered to do so by this court, that the circuit court entered its Judgment. See Blaisdell v. Sakamoto, No. 29776, 2009 WL 1223198 (Haw.2009). Assuming arguendo that Blaisdell acted with deliberate delay, a dismissal could not be upheld without a showing of actual prejudice to the defendant. See Shasteen, 79 Hawai`i at 109, 899 P.2d at 392. In this case, no defendant was burdened with prejudice because Blaisdell did not serve his complaint on anyone nor did he specifically name any defendants. SDO at 2. The circuit court named in its Judgment, sua sponte, fourteen defendants it assumed Blaisdell's action was directed at, and entered judgment in their favor. Because Blaisdell named no defendants in his complaint, no defendants were burdened with prejudice, which would otherwise support the justification for dismissing Blaisdell's claim for relief with prejudice. See Bagalay, 60 Haw. at 133, 588 P.2d at 422.