Hendrickson v. Sun Valley Corp., Inc., 12067
| Decision Date | 27 January 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 12067,12067 |
| Citation | 98 Idaho 133,559 P.2d 749 |
| Parties | Edwin O. HENDRICKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SUN VALLEY CORPORATION, INC., et al., Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
John S. Ritchie, of Rayborn, Rayborn & Ronayne, Twin Falls, for plaintiff-appellant.
Phillip M. Barber, of Elam, burke, Jeppesen, Evans & Boyd, Boise, for defendants-respondents.
The issue presented by this appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in failing to reinstate appellant's action after it had been dismissed for lack of prosecution. Under the circumstances of this case, we hold that it did not.
Plaintiff-appellant Edwin Hendrickson, a resident of California, was allegedly injured on December 25, 1971, while skiing on Mount Baldy at Sun Valley, Idaho. Almost two years later on December 10, 1973, he filed a pro se complaint naming as defendants Sun Valley Corporation and Janss Corporation. Although we will refer to these two corporations as respondents, they are not parties to this action because they have never been served with either a summons or a copy of the complaint. After filing his complaint, appellant did nothing further, and on January 27, 1975, his action was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
Upon learning of the dismissal appellant retained Idaho counsel and on July 3, 1975, he filed a motion pursuant to I.R.C.P. 60(b) for relief from the order of dismissal. After a hearing ex parte, the trial court denied appellant's motion, and he then filed his notice of appeal on September 29, 1975. Respondents were not informed of this lawsuit until after this appeal was initiated. As the time appellant's action was dismissed, I.R.C.P. 40(c) required the clerk to give notice of a dismissal for lack of prosecution at least ten days prior thereto. 1 In his affidavit in support of the motion to reinstate his action, appellant alleged:
Other than the above, appellant has presented no evidence that the requisite notice was not sent. Notably absent is any allegation that he notified the clerk's office of his change of address, or that had the notice been delivered to appellant's former address, he would have received it. We cannot therefore presume that the notice was unsent from the fact that appellant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Watson v. Navistar Intern. Transp. Corp., s. 16850
...Rule 60(b) requires that good cause be shown in order that a trial court grant the requested relief, Hendrickson v. Sun Valley Corp., Inc., 98 Idaho 133, 559 P.2d 749 (1977), and the rule was not intended to allow the trial court to reconsider the legal basis for its original decision grant......
-
Newbold v. Arvidson, 14371
...to suggest why a party undergoing a divorce should be excused from attending to legal obligations. See, Hendrickson v. Sun Valley Corp., Inc., 98 Idaho 133, 559 P.2d 749 (1977). Consequently, we find no legal basis in these allegations to justify setting aside the default However, it is rai......
-
Kirkham v. 4.60 Acres of Land in Vicinity of Inkom, Bannock County
...notice of pending dismissal was not sent from the fact that appellants' attorney does not recall seeing it. Hendrickson v. Sun Valley Corp., Inc., 98 Idaho 133, 559 P.2d 749 (1977). This court notes, however, that local rule no. 7 requires an order of dismissal for inaction to be made pursu......
-
Lowe v. Lym
...rule requires a showing of good cause and specifies particular grounds upon which relief may be afforded. Hendrickson v. Sun Valley Corporation, Inc., 98 Idaho 133, 559 P.2d 749 (1977). As with Rule 59(e) proceedings, the right to grant, or deny, relief under the provisions of Rule 60(b) is......