Opinion ID: 886973
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: ¶ 3 In early March of 2003, Vermeer sued Orville B. Jones, a/k/a Buzz Jones, individually and d/b/a Big Sky Underground Systems (Jones) to collect an alleged debt in excess of $15,000. The complaint was amended in May of 2003 to reflect Jones' true name. In an order filed June 4, 2003, the District Court set a scheduling conference for June 26 at 8:15 a.m., and authorized Vermeer's counsel to arrange for a conference call in lieu of personal attendance. The court received a letter from Jones, appearing pro se, in which he responded to questions about scheduling and requested to be absent from the scheduling conference because of a new job. Vermeer's counsel did not attend the conference in person or by telephone. ¶ 4 Relying on Rules 16(f) and 37(b)(2)(C), M.R.Civ.P., the District Court subsequently entered an order dismissing Vermeer's complaint with prejudice based on Vermeer's counsel's failure to obey a scheduling order. The court signed the order on July 3, 2003, eight days after the date of the scheduling conference, and filed the order on July 8, 2003. Vermeer's counsel sent the District Court a letter on July 7, apologizing for missing the scheduling conference and explaining that her office had experienced computer problems which presumably caused the conference to be removed from her calendar. ¶ 5 On July 17, 2003, Vermeer fax-filed a motion to reopen the case and included a supporting affidavit by Vermeer's counsel; paper filings followed the next day. In the affidavit, Vermeer's counsel stated she was reviewing her case file on July 7 when she realized she had missed the scheduling conference. She called the court's attention to her July 7 letter and characterized her failure to appear as a mistake. Vermeer's counsel stated her absence from the scheduling conference was not intended to be a willful delay or disregard of the legal process and she had pursued the matter with diligence. ¶ 6 The District Court denied Vermeer's motion to reopen the case. It observed that Jones' timely letter to the court had answered questions regarding scheduling matters and that Vermeer's counsel had sent Jones a letter dated June 9 indicating she intended to appear at the scheduling conference by telephone. The court also stated that eight days had elapsed between the missed conference and the date it signed the order dismissing the case. Finally, the District Court noted but did not discuss Vermeer's counsel's July 7 letter regarding her discovery of the error that day. Vermeer appeals.