Castle v. Hays
| Decision Date | 24 April 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 23531,23531 |
| Citation | 957 P.2d 351,131 Idaho 373 |
| Parties | Barbara Gail CASTLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jess Thomas HAYS, Defendant-Respondent. Twin Falls, March 1998 Term |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Thomsen & Stephens, P.A., Idaho Falls, for appellant. James D. Holman argued.
Benoit, Alexander, Sinclair, Harwood & High, Twin Falls, for respondent. John K. Butler argued.
This is an appeal by the plaintiff from an order by the district court dismissing an action to recover damages allegedly resulting from an automobile collision. The dismissal order was based upon a motion by the defendant pursuant to Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure (I.R.C.P.) 4(a)(2) for failure of the plaintiff to effect service of process on the defendant within six months after the lawsuit was filed. We affirm the dismissal, but for a reason other than that relied upon by the district court in granting the defendant's motion. Andre v. Morrow, 106 Idaho 455, 459, 680 P.2d 1355, 1359 (1984).
The action was filed on August 23, 1995. The defendant was not served with process nor did he appear in the action. On March 21, 1996, the district court mailed to plaintiff's counsel a notice of proposed dismissal pursuant to I.R.C.P. 40(c). 1 The notice directed counsel to present an affidavit on or before April 7, setting forth facts justifying retention and a timetable for actions necessary to make the case ready for trial; otherwise the case would be dismissed for inactivity. On April 11, pursuant to the notice of March 21, the district court entered an order dismissing the action pursuant to I.R.C.P. 40(c).
Seventy-seven days later, on June 27, plaintiff's counsel filed a motion to reinstate the action. The district court granted the motion and entered an order on July 1, 1996, reinstating the action. The defendant was served with the summons and complaint on July 12, 1996. On July 18, the defendant filed a motion to quash service and to dismiss the action pursuant to I.R.C.P. 4(a)(2) because he had not been served with process within six months after the complaint was filed. On November 27, the district court entered its memorandum decision granting the defendant's motion. The dismissal order was entered on December 9, from which the plaintiff timely pursued this appeal.
The plaintiff's argument presented on appeal questions the district court's exercise of discretion in granting the defendant's motion to dismiss under I.R.C.P. 4(a)(2). The plaintiff contends that plaintiff's attempts to negotiate a settlement with the defendant's insurer should have been accepted by the district court as an excusable reason why the defendant was not served with process after the complaint was filed in August, 1995, until July, 1996.
We do not find it necessary to reach a review of the district court's discretionary decision to dismiss the action. Instead, we hold that the district court did not have authority to reinstate the case after its dismissal in April, 1996, for inaction.
It has long been recognized that a formal order dismissing an action is in effect a final judgment that puts an end to the suit. Marshall v. Enns, 39 Idaho 744, 230 P. 46 (1924). Relief from such an order is limited. A party who disagrees with such an order may, within fourteen days, seek reconsideration in the trial court under I.R.C.P. 11(a)(2)(B), or the party may file an appeal within forty-two days to obtain appellate review of the dismissal order as provided in Idaho Appellate Rule 11(a)(1). See e.g., Donaldson v. Buckner, 66 Idaho 183, 157 P.2d 84 (1945). As a corollary, a timely motion for reconsideration tolls the time for filing an appeal until an order is entered deciding the motion. I.A.R. 14(a). Here, however, the plaintiff neither filed a motion for reconsideration within fourteen days after the dismissal was entered, nor did the plaintiff file a notice of appeal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wisdom v. Mallo
...dismissing the action is a final judgment. Eby v. State, 148 Idaho 731, 735-36, 228 P.3d 998, 1002-03 (2010); Castle v. Hays, 131 Idaho 373, 374, 957 P.2d 351, 352 (1998). Additionally, the district court did not err in determining that Wisdom's claims were pursued frivolously and unreasona......
-
Eby v. State
...from the Rule 40(c) order was available to Eby under I.R.C.P. 60(b). Applying the holding from this Court's decision in Castle v. Hays, 131 Idaho 373, 957 P.2d 351 (1998), the court held that Eby was not entitled to relief under I.R.C.P. 60(b) following a dismissal for inactivity pursuant t......
-
Dan Wiebold Ford v. Universal Computer
...matter is hereby DISMISSED. A district court's order dismissing a lawsuit is a final judgment which can be appealed. Castle v. Hays, 131 Idaho 373, 957 P.2d 351 (1998). Therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to hear this B. Did the District Court Err in Holding that the Arbitration Clause W......
-
McGriff v. McGriff
...subject matter jurisdiction until the children are no longer subject to the court's authority. Theron cites the case of Castle v. Hays, 131 Idaho 373, 957 P.2d 351 (1998) to support his contention that a party must seek relief from an order of dismissal within fourteen days according to I.R......