Court Opinion

ID: 9514345
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:48:49.78921+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:16.365737
License: Public Domain

KONENKAMP, Justice
(concurring in result).
[¶ 36] While I agree the plaintiffs have not shown “activity” in this case for over a year, establishing “record activity” should not be necessary.3 SDCL 15-11-11 merely requires “activity,” not record activity. The majority uses Holmoe v. Reuss, 403 N.W.2d 30 (S.D.1987), as the stepping stone to require “record activity.” In Holmoe we noted plaintiffs failure to preserve an adequate record for appeal. Id. at 31. However, in that case, as here, there was also no file activity. Hence, Holmoe’s underlying rationale must be examined before its needless expansion in this case. Holmoe cites Reed v. Heath, 383 N.W.2d 873 (S.D.1986), which stated that the ultimate responsibility for presenting an adequate record on appeal falls on the appellant. 403 N.W.2d at 33. Reed does not stand for the rule that SDCL 15-11-11 requires record activity. Holmoe also cites Duncan v. Pennington County Housing Authority, 382 N.W.2d 425 (S.D.1986), but that case makes no requirement of “record activity” and more importantly it involved a dismissal brought under SDCL 15-6-41(b), not SDCL 15-11-11. Id.
[¶ 37] The majority also cites 24 AmJur2d, Dismissal § 56 to further support its rationale. However, a close reading of the cases cited therein shows the requirement of “record activity” is derived from jurisdictions which explicitly mandate it by statute. See FlaStatAnn § 1.420(e)(West 1985)(“A11 actions in which it appears on the face of the record that no activity by filing of pleadings, order of court or otherwise has occurred for a period of one year shall be dismissed....”); Landberg v. State Dept. of Game & Fisheries, 36 Wash.App. 675, 676 P.2d 1027, 1029 (1984)(“In all civil cases wherein there has been no action of record during the 12 months just past ... such case will be dismissed by the court for want of prosecution ... ”) (citing state civil procedure rule 41(b)(2), failure to prosecute). Therefore, I decline to read the word “record” into our statute.
[¶ 38] Additionally, although I agree the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing this case, the result is distressing and points up the necessity for courts to take an active role in case management. The American Bar Association has long advocated the need for judges to take over responsibility for case flow supervision to ensure a just, economical, and speedy resolution of disputes.
If a court is to give prompt and adequate consideration to its cases, it is essential that the court itself exercise active supervision over its case flow. The possible alter*806natives to management by the court — leaving case scheduling to individual lawyers ... are not only likely to result in delay in individual cases but also to produce inefficiency and disruption in the flow of all cases. Each lawyer’s primary concern is with his own cases and his own scheduling problems, and lawyers as a matter of professional courtesy are inclined to accommodate each other’s scheduling needs.... Only the court has an overview of all cases, and only the court is in a position to provide orderly and impartial direction to the movement.
ABA, The Judicial Administration Division Handbook: The Improvement of the Administration of Justice, 6thEd, p37 (1981). While South Dakota currently has a hybrid system where both the bench and the bar participate in the flow of justice through the legal machinery, all the circuits should devise local rules to exercise more control over the supervision of their dockets. See SDCL 15-6-83(circuit court rules); Stormo v. Strong, 469 N.W.2d 816, 823 (S.D.1991)(trial courts have the authority to establish local rules, and where established, they are not to be ignored). See, for example, Second Judicial Circuit Civil Rules, SDCL 15-6-83, Appendix B. The mechanism to implement this process is already present. SDCL 15-6-16 provides:
Prior to the trial of any action, the court, either on its own motion or the motion of any party, shall, after consulting -with the attorneys for the parties and any unrepresented parties, enter a scheduling order that limits the time:
(1) To join other parties and to amend the pleadings;
(2) To file and hear motions;
(3) To complete discovery;
(4) The date or dates for conference before trial, final pretrial conference and trial;
(5) Any other matters appropriate to the circumstances of the case.
A schedule shall not be modified except by leave of the judge upon a showing of good cause.
[¶ 39] Seldom, if ever, should a case arise such as this one where there is no “activity,” justifying a dismissal for failure to prosecute, because judges should be monitoring their cases and spurring them toward a just and speedy disposition. After all, judges are ultimately responsible for administration of the judicial system for the benefit of those it serves. The South Dakota Bill of Rights provides: “All courts shall be open, and every man for an injury done him in his property, person or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law, and right and justice, administered without denial or delay.” South Dakota Constitution article VI, § 20 (emphasis added). Our goal is justice and “[t]he clearance of dockets and calendars is of secondary concern in the administration of justice.” Chicago & North Western Ry. Co. v. Bradbury, 80 S.D. 610, 612, 129 N.W.2d 540, 542 (1964).
[¶ 40] For the above reasons, I respectfully concur in result only.

. A requirement to file something of record may encourage parties to file documents in the court file once a year merely to keep the case from appearing inactive. The ultimate effect would cause needless filings and would not further the disposition of a case in any way.