Opinion ID: 2074984
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: dross action

Text: On May 5, 1986, Dross filed an action in the district court for Dodge County, in which Dross sought a partnership dissolution and accounting. The alleged partnership included Dross, Ronans, and Kerndt, who was not joined in the action. Ronans moved for dismissal because Dross had failed to join Kerndt as a necessary party. The court sustained Ronans' motion, but allowed 2 weeks for Dross' amended petition or Kerndt's intervention in the suit. Kerndt filed his intervention petition, which was nearly identical to Dross' petition, except Kerndt alleged that he had not been paid sums required by his oral contract with Ronans. Ronans, alleging that Dross and Kerndt had interfered with Ronans' business relationships, filed a counterclaim against Dross and Kerndt. All claims within the Dross action were dismissed when the court entered an order, which provided in its entirety: On January 5th, 1987, this matter came on for trial. Trial was resumed on January 16, 1987. Thereupon the matter of trial was continued. Trial resumed on March 4th, 1987, and was continued until April 2nd, 1987. Trial resumed on April 2nd, 1987, and evidence was further adduced. At the close of taking of evidence, the Court and counsel discussed a time schedule in which the parties would submit their closing argument in writing, as well as Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Plaintiff and Intervenors [sic] were granted until April 13, 1987, to submit their argument and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Defendants were given until April 27, 1987, to answer thereto. Plaintiff and Intervenors [sic] were given until May 4, 1987, to reply. To date neither the Plaintiff, the Intervenor, nor the Defendants have submitted to the Court their closing argument, nor their proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Now, the Court being fully advised in the premises does FIND and ORDER that the Plaintiff's Petition, the Intervenor's Petition, and the Defendants' Counterclaim should be, and are hereby, dismissed; with each party bearing their own cost. Dated this 24th day of June, 1987. Dross and Kerndt filed a motion and requested that the court vacate its dismissal judgment or grant a new trial. The court denied the motion. Neither Dross nor Kerndt appealed.