Opinion ID: 2099717
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Was the Case Reinstated After Its Dismissal on January 1, 2001?

Text: Rule 1.944 provides for mandatory or discretionary reinstatement. To qualify for either, however, an application for reinstatement, setting forth the grounds therefor, must be filed within six months of dismissal. Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.944(6); see Greene, 315 N.W.2d at 781 (holding court has no discretion in the matter in the absence of a timely application). The plaintiff claims that the pretrial order approved by the parties and signed by the court constituted a de facto reinstatement of the case. The district court rejected this argument, noting that the stipulated order was never intended by the plaintiff to be an application for reinstatement because the plaintiff contended at that time and continues to contend at this time that there has, in fact, been no dismissal of this case at any point in time. We agree with the district court's view of the situation. The pretrial order did not address the matter of reinstatement; it merely took the case off the clerk's list of dismissed cases. But as we have already noted, the inclusion or exclusion of a case from this list has no legal significance. Cases are dismissed automatically without any action by the clerk of court. Consequently, the parties' agreement to remove the case from the clerk's list did not prevent its dismissal. For the same reason, the stipulated order did not accomplish reinstatement of the plaintiff's action. No showing was made in January 2001 of any grounds justifying mandatory reinstatement. See Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.944(6) (requiring reinstatement upon a showing that such dismissal was the result of oversight, mistake or other reasonable cause). Nor was there any showing at that time to support discretionary reinstatement. The lack of any such showing is attributable to the fact that the plaintiff did not intend to seek reinstatement in January 2001. As the plaintiff acknowledges in his appellate brief, his intent in having the defendant stipulate that the case could be removed from the dismissal list was to avoid the necessity of filing a formal motion to vacate and/ or to reinstate the case.  (Emphasis added.) The plaintiff's reliance on our decision in Gold Crown Properties, Inc. v. Iowa District Court, 375 N.W.2d 692 (Iowa 1985), is misplaced. In that case, the plaintiff filed an application for continuance after the dismissal date and shortly thereafter filed a resistance to a motion for a formal order of dismissal that had been filed by the defendant. Gold Crown Props., 375 N.W.2d at 699-700. We noted that when read together the plaintiff's filings substantially met the rule [1.944] requirements of an application for reinstatement. Id. at 700. Not only did the substance of the plaintiff's pleadings evidence an effort to preserve the case for trial, more significantly, the pleadings set forth compelling grounds for reinstatement. Id. In contrast, the plaintiff here, as we have pointed out, made no showing of grounds warranting reinstatement. Therefore, we cannot say that he substantially complied with the requirements for reinstatement set forth in rule 1.944(6). Cf. Ray v. Merle Hay Mall, Inc., 621 N.W.2d 696, 698 (Iowa Ct.App.2000) (rejecting argument that parties' stipulation to a trial date beyond dismissal date was in effect a stipulation for a continuance under rule 1.944, distinguishing Gold Crown and noting that setting a trial date was ministerial whereas party was required to set forth reasons for a continuance). For these reasons, the pretrial order did not operate to reinstate the plaintiff's suit. See generally Greene, 315 N.W.2d at 782 (Because the stakes are high, and the results harsh, the formalities prescribed to implement the rule [1.944] procedure must be strictly observed.). Accordingly, the matter stood dismissed unless there is merit to the plaintiff's estoppel argument, an issue we now address.