Court Opinion

ID: 9679740
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:04:30.019651+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:19.273534
License: Public Domain

SEARS, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
Appellant had prior trial settings and filed motions for continuance. Appellant avoided the last preferential trial setting by agreeing to a settlement. Appellant then reneged, on the settlement but failed to advise the trial court. Appellant waited two months after receiving the notice of dismissal and then filed the motion to retain on the last day for filing. Finally, appellant failed to meet the very specific requirements set by the court for the motion to retain. Appellant was clearly not diligent.
The trial court stated in clear and unambiguous language:
If you do not file the appropriate motion to- retain, the cases will be dismissed for want of prosecution.
The Court clearly ordered the parties whose cases were on the dismissal docket to file a sworn motion containing certification that “discovery is completed” and the case is “ready for trial”. Appellant’s motion was devoid of any mention of completion of discovery, and it failed to certify that appellant was “ready for trial”. Appellant merely advised the court for the first time that he was not honoring his agreement to settle, and stated that he would be “ready to proceed” if the court resets the case.
A trial court judge must be given the freedom to manage and control his or her docket without undue interference by the Courts of Appeals. When the trial judge requires specific things to be included in a motion to retain, and plaintiff fails to certify to those specific requirements, it is not an abuse of discretion to deny the motion to retain. Appellant failed to give the court the required statement advising that discovery was completed, and if not completed, to provide the court with a “comprehensive discovery plan and the date of its completion”. Further, “ready to proceed” could mean many things, but “ready for trial” means only one.
I find no abuse of discretion and I would affirm.