Lenzie Gill v. Mary Jones Cobern
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Rel 10/23/2009 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ( ( 3 3 4 ) 2 2 9 ¬ 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 1070450 Lenzie Gill v. Mary Jones Appeal PER from C h i l t o n C i r c u i t (CV-06-1) Court CURIAM. Lenzie his Cobern claims Gill appeals the t r i a l a g a i n s t Mary Jones Cobern. Facts On J a n u a r y Cobern from and and P r o c e d u r a l 3, 2 0 0 6 , G i l l Progressive court's We r e v e r s e dismissal of and remand. History and V i o l a B e l s e r sued Mary Halcyon Insurance Jones Co., Inc. 1070450 ("Progressive"), accident that Cobern damages r e s u l t i n g f r o m an on occurred Gill 1, alleged recklessness, alleged seeking and breach or about negligence, wantonness, of May contract 2004. negligence and against bad and automobile faith. Against per Progressive Belser a g a i n s t Cobern a c l a i m of l o s s of c o n s o r t i u m . On 200 6, Cobern and filed her Progressive Rule 41(a), claims A l a . R. 13, 2007, court entered scheduling and July 13, The pretrial court dismissed Gill of 2007, 1, an " o r d e r conference 8, Gill, 22, 2006, Belser, to prejudice the granted the court 2007. On February s e t t i n g case f o r a pretrial and February d i s m i s s a l pursuant trial February f o r J u l y 23, 2007, 26, on dismissing without order," setting trial appear at the the C i v . P., and January a stipulation o f d i s m i s s a l on and in On Progressive. 2007, the t r i a l On i t s answer, answer. filed against stipulation filed he asserted March Progressive se, conference 2, trial for July 2007. Belser's and, as attorney failed a result, the t h e i r a c t i o n f o r want of p r o s e c u t i o n . to trial Nothing r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t C o b e r n moved f o r a d i s m i s s a l ; t h e trial court made which only an entry stated: 2 in the case-action summary, 1070450 "Defense counsel present. P l a i n t i f f f a i l e d to appear f o r p r e - t r i a l c o n f e r e n c e . Case d i s m i s s e d f o r want of prosecution." Because i t did not d i s m i s s a l of the Civ. P. any c a s e was ("Unless otherwise otherwise the specifies, d i s m i s s a l not upon the Belser a court's Gill and to under argued this that at the pretrial conference result of a calendering error. of law. Gill was The for 30, 2007, action be not and o p e r a t e s as Gill vacate of their R. dismissal or failure appear operation the court's subdivision ... July amend, that the rule On alter, requesting Belser order for in this trial Rule 41(b), A l a . its merits."). motion judgment, in dismissal provided the prejudice. court a adjudication filed with specify, the an and trial reinstated. attorney willful, to but the denied by Rule 41(b), A l a . R. motion was appealed. Discussion Dismissal Civ. P., which of an action states, i s g o v e r n e d by in pertinent part: "For f a i l u r e of the p l a i n t i f f to p r o s e c u t e or to c o m p l y w i t h t h e s e r u l e s o r any o r d e r of c o u r t , a d e f e n d a n t may move f o r d i s m i s s a l o f an a c t i o n o r o f any c l a i m a g a i n s t t h e d e f e n d a n t . U n l e s s t h e c o u r t i n its order for dismissal otherwise specifies, a d i s m i s s a l u n d e r t h i s s u b d i v i s i o n and any dismissal not p r o v i d e d f o r i n t h i s r u l e ... o p e r a t e s as an a d j u d i c a t i o n upon the merits." 3 1070450 Concerning the Riddlesprigger application v. E r v i n , 519 of So. Rule 2d 486 41(b), this Court (Ala. 1987), held follows: " R u l e 4 1 ( b ) h a s b e e n c o n s t r u e d t o mean t h a t a t r i a l c o u r t has t h e i n h e r e n t power t o d i s m i s s a c a u s e f o r want of p r o s e c u t i o n or f o r f a i l u r e t o comply w i t h c o u r t r u l e s o r o r d e r s . R y d e r I n t ' l C o r p . v. S t a t e , 439 So. 2 d 162 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1983). Accord, Link v . W a b a s h R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 82 S. C t . 1 3 8 6 , 8 L. Ed. 2 d 734 (1 9 6 2 ) . Such a d i s m i s s a l i s g e n e r a l l y c o n s i d e r e d t o be w i t h i n t h e s o u n d d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t a n d w i l l be r e v e r s e d on a p p e a l o n l y f o r an a b u s e o f t h a t d i s c r e t i o n . W h i t e h e a d v . B a r a n c o C o l o r L a b s , I n c . , 355 So. 2 d 376 (Ala. Civ. App. 1 9 7 8 ) . I t n e e d o n l y be d e t e r m i n e d , u p o n a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w of a t r i a l c o u r t ' s a c t i o n under Rule 4 1 ( b ) , whether the r u l i n g i s supported by t h e evidence. S t r i c k l a n d v . N a t i o n a l G y p s u m Co., 348 So. 2 d 497 (Ala. C i v . App. 1 9 7 7 ) ; N e t t l e s v. F i r s t N a t ' l Bank, 388 So. 2 d 916 ( A l a . 1980). "As this Court has heretofore observed: " ' I n A l a b a m a , a n d many f e d e r a l c o u r t s , the i n t e r e s t i n d i s p o s i n g of the l i t i g a t i o n on t h e m e r i t s i s o v e r c o m e a n d a d i s m i s s a l may be g r a n t e d when t h e r e i s a c l e a r r e c o r d of d e l a y , w i l l f u l d e f a u l t or contumacious c o n d u c t by t h e p l a i n t i f f . S m i t h v. Wilcox C o u n t y B o a r d o f E d u c a t i o n , 365 So. 2 d [659] a t 661 [ A l a . 1 9 7 8 ] . See, e.g., Boazman v. Economics Laboratory, I n c . , 537 F.2d 210 (5th C i r . 1 9 7 6 ) ; Pond v. B r a n i f f A i r w a y s , 453 F.2d 347 (5th C i r . 1972). Willful default or conduct is a conscious or intentional failure to act. Welsh v. A u t o m a t i c P o u l t r y F e e d e r Co., 439 F . 2 d 95 (8th C i r . 1971). "Willful" i s used in 4 in as 1070450 contradistinction to accidental or involuntary noncompliance. No wrongful motive or i n t e n t i s n e c e s s a r y t o show w i l l f u l conduct.' "Selby 519 v . Money, So. a t 487-88. 2d "[b]ecause the t r i a l the conduct his decision 403 S o . 2 d 2 1 8 , 220 Further, judge grant Court has held i s i n the best p o s i t i o n of the p l a i n t i f f to this ( A l a . 1981)." a and t h e degree motion to that to assess of noncompliance, dismiss for failure to p r o s e c u t e w i l l be a c c o r d e d c o n s i d e r a b l e w e i g h t b y a r e v i e w i n g court." Jones v. M e r r i l l 604 S o . 2 d 3 3 2 , 341 In a Fenner attorney failed summary defendants judgment. orally & Smith, I n c . , ( A l a . 1991). C a b a n i s s v . W i l s o n , 501 S o . 2 d 1 1 7 7 plaintiffs' for Lynch, P i e r c e , moved t o appear At a t a h e a r i n g on a m o t i o n the hearing, to dismiss ( A l a . 1986), the counsel the p l a i n t i f f s ' f o r the complaint with prejudice u n d e r R u l e 4 1 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., f o r to The prosecute. 41(b) motion, prejudice. alter, court dismissing Subsequently, amend, or summary-judgment calender trial vacate hearing of p l a i n t i f f s ' granted the defendants' the plaintiffs' filed the judgment, claiming was "inadvertently counsel " 501 Rule complaint the p l a i n t i f f s 5 failure a motion left So. 2d that with to the o f f the a t 1179. 1070450 The trial plaintiffs court appealed. Applying of a trial claims, "the [at no So. 2d at motion, held the on on the to this the willful plaintiffs' 501 support Court claims of the plaintiff's plaintiffs' or contumacious the at to appear remanded in court allegedly Because there dismissal with order dismissing the its 1181. because court's trial reversed and 2d review the of attorney So. the a s u m m a r y - j u d g m e n t m o t i o n ] was his part." evidence plaintiffs' conduct that and 1179-80. prejudice a p p e a r t o be of hearing prejudice, 501 plaintiffs' dismissal with Court d i d not inadvertent was court's failure the the the w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d r u l e s concerning this attorney denied the cause for further proceedings. As was reveal the warrant See the the case presence "harsh in of "extreme sanction" S e l b y v . M o n e y , 403 Cobern argues on a f f e c t e d the t r i a l action trial Gill's Cabaniss, So. appeal the circumstances" of a many here does factors Although could court's u l t i m a t e d e c i s i o n to dismiss with prejudice, the court dismissed Gill's a t t o r n e y d i d not record clearly action on have Gill's indicates that the sole basis appear at the p r e t r i a l conference. 6 to prejudice. (Ala. 1981). other not sufficient dismissal with 2 d 218 , 220 that record the that In 1070450 Gill's motion judgment, result of to alter, Gill's attorney of a calendering willful Gill's also the federal court the present pretrial conference mistaken belief filed, after the court. and No i t was f i l e d . "willful" or i t was Gill's action denied an o r i g i n a l party i n deleted h i s calendar the action to G i l l ' s by o p e r a t i o n Gill's "contumacious that filed in attorney conduct." filed in motion was days Nothing in engaged in Therefore, we was 1 the on t h e o f l a w 90 S e e R u l e 5 9 . 1 , A l a . R. C i v . P. that the i n an a c t i o n from i n opposition was alleged attorney to court's not the r e s u l t The m o t i o n Gill i t pertained brief indicates delay that the t r i a l h i s absence Progressive, i n this a n d t h e m o t i o n was record conduct. represented that that e r r o r and t h a t against case, or vacate alleged or contumacious attorney federal amend, Cobern argues that the f a c t that G i l l r e f e r r e d to the trial c o u r t ' s s c h e d u l i n g order o n l y seven days b e f o r e the s c h e d u l e d p r e t r i a l c o n f e r e n c e i n h i s J u l y 6, 2 0 0 7 , m o t i o n f o r continuance o f t r i a l p r o v e s t h a t "any i n a d v e r t e n t d e l e t i o n f r o m [ G i l l ' s a t t o r n e y ' s ] c a l e n d a r i s n o t t h e o n l y r e a s o n he missed the p r e - t r i a l conference." Cobern's b r i e f , a t 17. However, t h e mere f a c t t h a t G i l l r e f e r e n c e d t h e s c h e d u l i n g o r d e r s e v e n d a y s b e f o r e t h e p r e t r i a l c o n f e r e n c e d o e s n o t show that G i l l ' s attorney acted w i l l f u l l y or contumaciously in being absent from the p r e t r i a l conference. In f a c t , Gill's a t t o r n e y s t a t e d i n G i l l ' s m o t i o n t o amend, a l t e r , o r v a c a t e t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t -- w h i c h was u n o p p o s e d -- t h a t he missed the p r e t r i a l conference as a r e s u l t o f a c a l e n d e r i n g error. C o b e r n ' s a l l e g a t i o n , b a s e d s o l e l y on t h e f a c t t h a t 1 7 1070450 hold that the t r i a l with court erred i n dismissing Gill's action prejudice. Conclusion Based court's and order the foregoing, we consistent court with this R E V E R S E D AND that the trial by t h e e v i d e n c e court exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n d i s m i s s i n g action with prejudice. the t r i a l conclude of d i s m i s s a l i s not supported that the t r i a l Gill's of on and We t h e r e f o r e remand this cause reverse for the order proceedings opinion. REMANDED. Cobb, C . J . , and W o o d a l l , Smith, Parker, a n d Shaw, J J . , concur. G i l l ' s a t t o r n e y r e f e r e n c e d the s c h e d u l i n g order seven before the p r e t r i a l conference, i s n o t h i n g more t h a n speculation. 8 days pure
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
