Opinion ID: 885334
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: issues

Text: ¶ 11 Did the court err in dismissing Janow's claims under Rule 41(e), M.R.Civ.P. (1999)? ¶ 12 A district court's determination that a complaint must be dismissed for failure of the plaintiff to comply with Rule 41(e), M.R.Civ.P. (1999), is a conclusion of law which we review to determine whether the court's interpretation of the law is correct. Eddleman v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 1998 MT 52, ¶ 8, 288 Mont. 50, ¶ 8, 955 P.2d 646, ¶ 8. ¶ 13 Janow argues that even under Rule 41(e), M.R.Civ.P. (1999), her complaint should not have been dismissed, because of the preference given to trying cases on their merits. She argues that in spite of her failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 41(e), the District Court's order should be reversed because she acted diligently in attempting to comply with the rule. Janow claims that the parties were involved in negotiations at the time she served the defendants with summonses and that her ultimate motive was to avoid litigation altogether. In support of her position, Janow refers to materials that are not part of the record on appeal, including a chronology of alleged events attached as Exhibit C to her brief. ¶ 14 Conoco Pipe Line Company and Yellowstone Pipe Line Company have moved to strike all references in Janow's brief to materials that are not part of the record on appeal. It is well-established that [p]arties on appeal are bound by the record and may not add additional matters in briefs or appendices. Groves v. Clark, 1999 MT 117, ¶ 19, 294 Mont. 417, ¶ 19, 982 P.2d 446, ¶ 19. The motion to strike is therefore granted, but we decline the defendants' request that sanctions be imposed against Janow. ¶ 15 In any event, Rule 41(e) contains no exceptions to the requirement that summons must be filed with the clerk of court within three years. In Haugen v. Blaine Bank of Montana (1996), 279 Mont. 1, 926 P.2d 1364, this Court upheld the requirement of Rule 41(e) as to filing of proof of service, in the face of some of the same arguments here made by Janow. In Haugen, as in the present case, summonses were served within three years, but proof of service was not filed until the three-year period had expired-it was late by a matter of days. In his special concurrence, Justice Nelson cogently stated: This case ... is about the fairness inherent in simply applying the rules of civil procedure as they are written, instead of interpreting them in some strained fashion so as to allow one party to disregard the rules at the expense of the other party. The rules of civil procedure are not written to secure a tactical advantage to either the plaintiff or the defendant; rather, they are written to regulate the course of litigation, to level the playing field, and to move a lawsuit forward at something more than a glacial speed. The rules are there for both parties to read and to follow. If lawyers choose to conduct their practices in the eleventh hour, then neither they nor their clients should be particularly surprised when, whether through dalliance, neglect or lack of attention to the time limits clearly set forth in the rules, time eventually runs out. Haugen, 279 Mont. at 12, 926 P.2d at 1370. In Eddleman, at ¶ 10, we reaffirmed our ruling in Haugen, again approving the dismissal of a complaint for failure to meet the Rule 41(e) deadline for filing proof of service. ¶ 16 While Janow argues to the contrary, we agree with the defendants that this case is more similar to Haugen than it is to Schmitz v. Vasquez, 1998 MT 314, 292 Mont. 164, 970 P.2d 1039. In Schmitz, this Court determined that the plaintiff's failure to file and serve the original summons issued within one year was a procedural irregularity from which the defendant/appellant could show no prejudice. However, in that case, the plaintiff had filed proof of service of amended summonses within three years. Schmitz, at ¶ 9. ¶ 17 The law of Montana on this point has been settled since Haugen was decided in 1996. Yet Janow waited until the eve of the three-year period to serve her summonses, resulting in her failure to file any proof of service with the Clerk of the District Court until several days after the last day allowed for so doing under Rule 41(e), M.R.Civ.P. (1999). We hold that the District Court was correct in dismissing Janow's complaint. ¶ 18 Affirmed. KARLA M. GRAY, JAMES C. NELSON, and JIM REGNIER, JJ., concur.