Garcia v. Lane, Case Number: 114545
| Decision Date | 30 March 2017 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 114545 |
| Parties | Osvaldo GARCIA, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Steven LANE, Defendant/Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma |
Jon Williford, GRIFFIN, REYNOLDS, & ASSOCIATES, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff/Appellant.
W.G. "Gil" Steidley, Jr., Stacie L. Hixon, Douglas R. Scott, Mary O'Reilly, STEIDLEY & NEAL, P.L.L.C., Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Defendant/Appellee.
¶ 1 Plaintiff/Appellant Osvaldo Garcia appeals from the trial court's order dismissing the action with prejudice. The trial court dismissed the case with prejudice because Garcia was not ready to proceed with trial on the day of trial. We hold it was within the trial court's inherent power to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute and, given the circumstances, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action with prejudice. AFFIRMED.
¶ 2 Garcia and Defendant/Appellee Steven Lane were involved in a motor vehicle accident January 22, 2011. Garcia filed a personal injury lawsuit against Lane December 18, 2012. Pre-trial conference was held May 5, 2014. The pre-trial order set the case for jury trial October 6, 2014. Trial was re-set several times due to Garcia obtaining new counsel, a joint motion to continue, the case being re-assigned to a different judge, and Garcia's motion to continue due to illness. Ultimately, the case was set for jury trial September 14, 2015. On the morning of trial, Garcia filed a Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice, pursuant to 12 O.S. 684. Lane objected. The trial court heard arguments and denied Garcia's Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice based on Garcia not providing an explanation for the last minute dismissal, the age of the case, and prejudice to the defense. Garcia's only response was that 684 did not authorize the trial court to deny his motion and the court was required to issue an order dismissing the case without prejudice. The court ordered to proceed with trial. When asked if Garcia was prepared to proceed with trial, Garcia's counsel announced he was not and that his client was not present. Because Garcia was not ready for trial on the day of trial, the trial court ordered the case dismissed with prejudice. A Journal Entry of Judgment was filed November 20, 2015. Garcia appeals.
¶ 3 Garcia's first proposition of error is that 12 O.S. 684 does not permit a trial court to deny a plaintiff's motion to dismiss without prejudice. Issues of statutory construction are questions of law to be reviewed de novo , and appellate courts exercise plenary, independent, and non-deferential authority. Welch v. Crow , 2009 OK 20, ¶ 10, 206 P.3d 599. In cases requiring statutory construction, the cardinal rule is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the Legislature. Id . The words of a statute will be given their plain and ordinary meaning, unless it is contrary to the purpose and intent of the statute considered as a whole. Naylor v. Petuskey , 1992 OK 88, 834 P.2d 439.
¶ 4 The 2013 version of the 12 O.S. 684 applies in this case.
12 O.S.Supp.2014 684(A)-(B) (emphasis added).1 Garcia's Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice was made after the pre-trial hearing, and the parties did not agree to dismissing the action. Therefore, a court order was required.
¶ 5 We hold the plain and ordinary meaning of the language in 12 O.S.Supp.2014 684(A) and (B) permits the trial court to deny a plaintiff's request to dismiss an action after pre-trial. This interpretation is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Legislature. The previous version of the statute permitted the plaintiff to dismiss a case without a court order any time before trial:
A. Except as provided in Section 5 of this act, an action may be dismissed on the payment of costs and without an order of court by the plaintiff at any time before a petition of intervention or answer praying for affirmative relief against the plaintiff is filed in the action. A plaintiff may, at any time before the trial is commenced , on payment of the costs and without any order of court , dismiss the action after the filing of a petition of intervention or answer praying for affirmative relief, but such dismissal shall not prejudice the right of the intervenor or defendant to proceed with the action.
12 O.S.Supp.2004 684(A) (emphasis added). In the 2013 version of the statute, the Legislature deliberately limited a plaintiff's ability to dismiss an action at the eleventh hour by requiring either the agreement of the parties or a court order. Garcia's suggestion that the trial court is required to issue an order dismissing the action upon the plaintiff's request is in direct conflict with the plain language of the statute and the intent of the Legislature.
¶ 6 Second, Garcia contends the trial court did not have authority to dismiss this case with prejudice.
¶ 7 The Oklahoma Supreme Court has recognized a court's inherent power to dismiss an action because of a party's failure to prosecute an action. See Boston v. Buchanan , 2003 OK 114, ¶ 14, 89 P.3d 1034 ; Winters v. City of Okla. City , 1987 OK 63, ¶¶ 8-9, 740 P.2d 724.
[T]he district court has the discretion to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute, and the discretion to dismiss an action for lack of diligence in prosecution is an aspect of a court's inherent power recognized at common law "to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants."
McCamey v. Med. Ctrs. of Okla. , LLC, 2016 OK CIV APP 5, 10, 365 P.3d 515 (quoting Boston , 2003 OK 114, ¶ 35, n.9, 89 P.3d 1034 ). Oklahoma appellate courts have found where the issues were duly joined, the case came on for trial, and the plaintiff refused to proceed, the trial court properly dismissed the action. See Nwachuku v. Yellow Cab Co., Inc. , 1995 OK CIV APP 31, ¶ 6, 895 P.2d 741 (citing Lamme v. Skelton , 1923 OK 582, ¶ 1, 106 Okla. 214, 233 P. 705 ).
¶ 8 Garcia argues this case mirrors Goins v. Fox , 1958 OK 266, 332 P.2d 220, in which the Oklahoma Supreme Court found the trial court exceeded its statutory power under 12 O.S. 683 by dismissing an action with prejudice. In Goins , the trial court did not identify statutory or common law grounds for dismissing the action with prejudice, but the plaintiff argued and the Supreme Court agreed it was apparent the trial court was acting under its statutory power, rather than the trial court's broad inherent powers. See id. ¶¶ 7-8. According to 683, the trial court, on its own initiative, may dismiss an action without prejudice if a plaintiff disobeys an order of the court.2 Dismissals pursuant to 683 must be without prejudice. See Points v. Okla. Publ'g Co. , 1983 OK 62, ¶ 2, n.2, 672 P.2d 1146. In Goins , the dismissal was due to the plaintiffs disobeying orders in cases previously dismissed, not the pending case, and the Supreme Court ultimately held there was no basis in the record or law to justify a dismissal of the action either with or without prejudice. See Goins , 1958 OK 266, ¶ 14, 332 P.2d 220.
¶ 9 Garcia does not argue the trial court dismissed the action with prejudice pursuant to its 683 authority as the Goins plaintiffs argued. Garcia suggests the court's dismissal with prejudice was pursuant to 684 and that 684 requires the plaintiff's consent to dismiss with prejudice. In his brief in chief, Garcia contends:
While the Goins Court relied primarily upon 12 O.S.1951 section 683, the same rationale and reasoning would apply here. First and foremost, there has been no disobedience by the Plaintiff/Appellant. The present case has already passed the pretrial conference, thus section 684 would apply. The only authority for dismissing with prejudice must be found either in the statute or some other case law. Section 684 never mentions any authority to dismiss with prejudice.
Garcia misconstrues 684 and the court's order. Section 684 does not authorize the court to dismiss an action with or without prejudice on its own initiative. The trial court did not, in its remarks during the hearing or in the judgment, identify 684 or any other statutory grounds for the dismissal. Unlike Goins , here, the trial court's exercise of authority under 683 to dismiss the action is not apparent. The trial court dismissed the case because Garcia's counsel was not ready to proceed with trial on the day of trial. This comes within the trial court's inherent authority to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute.
¶ 10 Since the Goins decision, the Oklahoma Supreme Court has rejected the notion that 12 O.S. 683 or other statutes are the exclusive grounds for dismissal upon a plaintiff's failure to prosecute. See Boston , 2003 OK 114, ¶ 14, n.5, 89 P.3d 1034. The Oklahoma Supreme Court has cited with approval the United States Supreme Court's holding that "[t]he authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has generally been considered an ‘inherent power,’ governed not by rule or statute but by the control...
To continue reading
Request your trial