Court Opinion

ID: 9555252
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-11 14:09:53.835418+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:42:01.547648
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: AUGUST 4, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
                        NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                Commonwealth of Kentucky
                          Court of Appeals

                             NO. 2022-CA-1229-MR

PAUL PSIONES                                                        APPELLANT

               APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT
v.             HONORABLE A.C. MCKAY CHAUVIN, JUDGE
                       ACTION NO. 20-CI-004663

CHRISTINA BELL;
MARK E. BARKER; AND
AA AUTO REPAIR                                                       APPELLEES

                                    OPINION
                                   AFFIRMING

                                  ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE; GOODWINE AND TAYLOR,
JUDGES.

GOODWINE, JUDGE: Paul Psiones appeals a September 21, 2022, order of the

Jefferson Circuit Court dismissing his negligence claims against the above-

captioned appellees due to his failure to prosecute; and an October 3, 2022, order

denying his motion to vacate. Upon review, we affirm.
              FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

             On August 11, 2020, Paul Psiones filed suit in Jefferson Circuit Court

against Christina Bell, AA Auto Repair (“AA Auto”), and “Mark Baker,” claiming

these individuals were jointly and severally liable for injuries he had sustained in a

motor vehicle accident. In sum, Psiones alleged that on or about April 2, 2020, a

truck bearing AA Auto’s logo collided with the vehicle he was driving; that Bell

was liable for her negligence in operating the truck and causing his resulting

injuries; and that the owner of the truck and/or the individual who had provided it

to Bell – allegedly AA Auto and/or “Mark Baker” – were jointly and severally

liable for negligent entrustment. Later that month, AA Auto filed an answer that

generally denied liability and specifically denied ownership of the truck and any

relationship with “Mark Baker.” Bell was served but did not answer. As for

“Mark Baker,” Psiones was permitted to amend his complaint on December 9,

2020, to reflect that this individual was actually “Mark E. Barker.”

             On October 26, 2020, Psiones moved for default judgment against

Bell and a hearing on damages. The circuit court entered an order providing Bell

until December 14, 2020, to file a response. After that, no other activity of record

occurred regarding Bell. Psiones did not renew his motion for default judgment

after December 14, 2020, nor otherwise inform the circuit court that Bell still had

not filed a responsive pleading.

                                         -2-
                 On February 17, 2021, Psiones moved to appoint a special bailiff to

serve Barker, whom he alleged was avoiding service. His motion was granted on

March 5, 2021. After that, no other activity of record occurred regarding Barker,

and Barker remained unserved. Although AA Auto had filed an answer, Psiones

also took no steps toward prosecuting his action against AA Auto.

                 On March 10, 2022, Psiones’ continued inaction regarding his case

prompted the circuit court to notify him, pursuant to Kentucky Rule of Civil

Procedure (CR) 77.02(2),1 that his suit would be dismissed in 30 days for want of

prosecution unless he filed a pleading and accompanying affidavit showing good

cause why no steps had been taken of record to further his case for more than one

year. Psiones filed a timely response to the circuit court’s notice but offered little

explanation for his inaction over the prior year. In the relevant part, his March 14,

2021, responsive pleading stated:

                 Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court to not enter an
                 Order dismissing the above claim. Plaintiff’s counsel
                 states that a lawsuit was filed on August 11, 2020. The
                 Plaintiff is not currently seeking medical treatment for
                 the injuries sustained on April 2, 2020. Counsel has a
                 Special Bailiff appointed to serve Mark Barker.

1
    In full, CR 77.02(2) provides:

          At least once each year trial courts shall review all pending actions on their
          dockets. Notice shall be given to each attorney of record of every case in which
          no pretrial step has been taken within the last year, that the case will be dismissed
          in thirty days for want of prosecution except for good cause shown. The court
          shall enter an order dismissing without prejudice each case in which no answer or
          an insufficient answer to the notice is made.

                                                   -3-
               Defendant, Christina Bell, has been served (9/15/2020);
               Defendant, AA Auto Repair, has been served
               (8/20/2020); however, no responsive pleadings have been
               filed.[2] It is believed Mark Barker is avoiding service.
               As such it is respectfully requested that this matter
               remain on the Court’s docket.

               The affidavit that accompanied Psiones’ response, sworn out by his

attorney, also did not explain Psiones’ inaction over the prior year beyond

indicating that Mark Barker could not be located and served. It incorrectly

represented that “No Defendants have been served or filed responsive pleading

[sic].” (Emphasis added.) Furthermore, it averred that “The depositions of the

parties were taken on July 26, 2012” – an averment that is contrary to all

indications of the record and which appears to have been accidentally included in

the affidavit, considering that Psiones initiated this action in 2020.

               On September 21, 2022, after nothing else of record demonstrated any

further progress had occurred in this matter, the circuit court dismissed Psiones’

action without prejudice pursuant CR 77.02. In the relevant part of its order to that

effect, the circuit court explained:

               In keeping with the Court’s Opinion and Order of March
               18, 2022, the aforementioned notice was to be held in
               abeyance for a period of sixty days. No pretrial steps of
               record have taken place since the Court’s aforementioned
               Opinion and Order.

2
  Psiones’ representation that “no responsive pleadings have been filed” is incorrect. As
indicated, AA Auto filed a timely answer.

                                               -4-
              ...

              THE COURT FINDS that no sufficient cause has been
              shown as to why no pretrial steps have been taken of
              record by the Plaintiff in more than one (1) year.

              Psiones subsequently moved the circuit court pursuant to CR 59 to

vacate its order, offering three contentions in support. First, he argued that the

“Opinion and Order of March 18, 2022” referenced in the circuit court’s

September 21, 2022, order was never effective because it was never entered, and

that he was never aware of it, and it was consequently unfair to dismiss his action

on that basis. Second, he argued he had been diligently pursuing this case because

he had attempted to effectuate service upon Barker by mail on at least four

occasions since amending his complaint; and that he had also attempted to

effectuate service upon Barker by resorting to a special bailiff. In that latter vein,

he appended a series of emails his counsel had received from the special bailiff that

detailed the special bailiff’s sporadic attempts at service and lack of success

between May 2021 and March 2022.3 Third, Psiones noted that he had moved for

default judgment against Bell in 2020, and he faulted the circuit court for

3
 The emails from the special bailiff, Tija Jackson, were respectively dated May 11, 2021;
November 16, 2021; December 16, 2021; March 14, 2022. Jackson did not specify the number
of attempts she made to serve Barker during this time. The final email from Jackson, dated
March 14, 2022, indicates she agreed to accept $180 for a “stake-out” of Barker’s home.

                                            -5-
dismissing his suit before ruling on his pending motion. The circuit court

subsequently denied Psiones’ motion to vacate. This appeal followed.

                            STANDARD OF REVIEW

             CR 77.02 is essentially a “housekeeping rule,” to expedite removing

stale cases from a court’s docket. Honeycutt v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co., 336

S.W.3d 133, 135 (Ky. App. 2011). Trial courts have wide discretion in dismissing

cases under CR 77.02. Id. And we review dismissals pursuant thereto under the

abuse of discretion standard. Wildcat Prop. Mgmt., LLC v. Reuss, 302 S.W.3d 89

(Ky. App. 2009). Additionally, because this appeal arises from denying a CR

59.05 motion, our review as an appellate court is also under the abuse of discretion

standard. Bowling v. Ky. Dep’t of Corr., 301 S.W.3d 478 (Ky. 2009). A trial court

abuses its discretion when its decision is “arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or

unsupported by sound legal principles.” Reuss, 302 S.W.3d at 93 (quoting Sexton

v. Sexton, 125 S.W.3d 258, 272 (Ky. 2004)).

                                     ANALYSIS

             Before reaching Psiones’ arguments, we must address the appellees’

failure to file an appellee brief. Kentucky Rule of Appellate Procedure (RAP)

31(H)(3) provides penalties for an appellee’s failure to file a brief:

             If the appellee’s brief has not been filed within the time
             allowed, the court may: (a) accept the appellant’s statement
             of the facts and issues as correct; (b) reverse the judgment if
             appellant’s brief reasonably appears to sustain such action;

                                          -6-
             or (c) regard the appellee’s failure as a confession of error
             and reverse the judgment without considering the merits of
             the case.

             Though we can side with Psiones procedurally due to the failure of the

appellees to file briefs, we decline to do so because Psiones’ arguments fail on the

merits. On appeal, Psiones begins by reasserting the three arguments he advanced

below in his CR 59 motion. We will address those arguments in turn. First,

Psiones is correct that the circuit court never entered the “Opinion and Order of

March 18, 2022” referenced in its dispositive order of September 21, 2022, and

that the “Opinion and Order of March 18, 2022” was accordingly never effective.

See, e.g., Murrell v. City of Hurstbourne Acres, 401 S.W.2d 60, 61 (Ky. 1966)

(explaining court orders are only effective if they are in writing, signed by the

judge, and entered into the official record by the circuit clerk).

             However, this point does not indicate that the circuit court’s decision

to dismiss Psiones’ action was erroneous or otherwise caused Psiones undue

prejudice. Psiones appears to be complaining that the circuit court penalized him

for his failure to comply with an order that he never knew about, but the ultimate

result that the circuit court achieved in this matter was consistent with CR

77.02(2). Pursuant to that civil rule, the circuit court was authorized to dismiss his

action if, within thirty days of its notice, he failed to show good cause. Had the

circuit court’s March 18, 2022, order been effective, it would have allowed Psiones

                                          -7-
an additional 60 days to demonstrate good cause for not dismissing his case –

leeway not otherwise contemplated by CR 77.02(2). Because that order was not

entered and because Psiones was not aware of it, Psiones accordingly had no

reason to expect that he would be granted more than the thirty days permitted by

the civil rule to demonstrate good cause; or that the circuit court would consider

anything beyond the pleading and affidavit that he filed on March 14, 2022 – the

only additional step Psiones took of record between the date of the circuit court’s

notice and its dispositive judgment of September 21, 2022 – in determining

whether to dismiss his action for want of prosecution. At most, the circuit court’s

reliance upon its un-entered March 18, 2022, Opinion and Order, as outlined in its

September 21, 2022 order, resulted in harmless error.

             As for his second argument, Psiones notes that our Supreme Court has

held that off-the-record pretrial steps, such as settlement negotiations, can qualify

as adequate prosecution of a case for purposes of a good cause showing under CR

77.02(2). See, e.g., Bohannon v. Rutland, 616 S.W.2d 46 (Ky. 1981). However,

he cites no authority – and we have found none – indicating that almost two years

of sporadic and unsuccessful attempts at effectuating service upon an allegedly

evasive defendant qualifies as adequate prosecution within the meaning of CR

77.02(2). Nor does Psiones explain why, during that time, he took no steps toward

                                          -8-
resolving his claims against the other two defendants he did manage to serve, i.e.,

Bell and AA Auto. Accordingly, this is not a point of error, either.

             As for his third argument, Psiones notes that he had moved for default

judgment against Bell in 2020, and he takes issue with the circuit court for

dismissing his suit before ruling on his pending motion. However, Psiones did not

appropriately preserve this argument below, as he only raised it in his CR 59

motion after the circuit court had already dismissed his action. See, e.g., Hopkins

v. Ratliff, 957 S.W.2d 300, 301 (Ky. App. 1997) (“A party cannot invoke [CR

59.05] to raise arguments and introduce evidence that could and should have been

presented during the proceedings before entry of the judgment.” (internal

quotation marks and citation omitted)); see also Felts v. Edwards, 181 Ky. 287,

204 S.W. 145, 149 (1918) (The appellants “did not choose to call the motions to

the attention of the court or to cause any ruling to be had upon them, and hence

must be considered to have waived any objections on that ground.”). Apart from

that, Psiones cites no rule of law that prohibited the circuit court’s action. To the

contrary, the circuit court proceeded, as it was entitled to do under the plain

language of CR 77.02(2), to dismiss Psiones’ case due to his failure to continue

prosecuting his claim.

             Lastly, Psiones raises new arguments. He contends the circuit court

committed palpable error by failing to apply the six factors outlined in Ward v.

                                          -9-
Housman, 809 S.W.2d 717, 719 (Ky. App. 1991),4 to “consider the totality of the

circumstances” regarding its decision to dismiss for want of prosecution; and he

asserts that the circuit court’s “without prejudice” dismissal was unduly harsh, and

effectively a “with prejudice” dismissal because the operative limitations period

has expired regarding his negligence claims. However, the Ward “considerations

[do not] necessarily precede a dismissal without prejudice under CR 77.02.”

Manning v. Wilkinson, 264 S.W.3d 620, 624 (Ky. App. 2007). In other words,

because the court was fulfilling its housekeeping duties and dismissed the case

without prejudice, it was not required to consider the Ward factors.

               Furthermore, “[l]imitations statutes are by nature arbitrary and so

sometimes seem to operate harshly. This harshness, of course, does not authorize

courts to disregard the strict duties such statutes impose.” Reese v. General

American Door Co., 6 S.W.3d 380, 383 (Ky. App. 1998). Nor, for that matter, did

that harshness authorize the circuit court to disregard its responsibility under CR

77.02(2) to preserve the judicial process by dismissing this matter. Psiones had

over a year to move his case along. He failed to do so. The circuit court did not

accept the excuses he offered for his failure. And, considering what is set forth

4
  The Ward factors, which relate to CR 41.02 dismissals for lack of prosecution, require
consideration of: “1) the extent of the party’s personal responsibility; 2) the history of
dilatoriness; 3) whether the attorney’s conduct was willful and in bad faith; 4) meritoriousness of
the claim; 5) prejudice to the other party, and 6) alternative sanctions.” Ward, 809 S.W.2d at 719
(citation omitted).

                                               -10-
above, we find no abuse of the circuit court’s wide discretion in that regard. The

circuit court’s action was consistent with CR 77.02(2) and our jurisprudence.

Therefore, the circuit court did not err, palpably or otherwise.

                                  CONCLUSION

             Based on the foregoing, we AFFIRM.

             ALL CONCUR.

 BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:                      NO BRIEF FILED FOR
                                           APPELLEES.
 Steven R. Romines
 Lawrence I. Young
 Louisville, Kentucky

                                         -11-