Carolyn R. Bibeau, Executrix of the Estate of Robert L. Bibeau, Deceased, Appellant v. Northeast Airlines, Inc, 429 F.2d 212 (D.C. Cir. 1970)

This cases arises on appeal from the District Court's refusal to reinstate a wrongful death action brought by a widow on behalf of herself and her two minor children, after that action had been dismissed for want of prosecution under Local Rule 13.¹  We reverse the action of the District Court and order the case reinstated.

While it is within the discretion of the District Court to deny a motion²  to reinstate a case which has been dismissed for lack of prosecution, in this case we feel that discretion has been abused.³  We recognize and wholeheartedly approve of the District Court's justifiable interest in eliminating the "dead wood" from its calendar and in avoiding the prejudice which can accrue to a defendant when a plaintiff is dilatory in presenting his case. But at the same time the interests of justice require that the dereliction of counsel should not uniformly bar plaintiffs with valid claims from recovery through an inflexible application of the rule. The District Court's recent amendment to Rule 13, made effective soon after the District Court refused to reinstate the instant case, makes clear that Rule 13 is intended to deal with the errors of attorneys and not to punish their clients unnecessarily.⁴ 

In this case appellee makes no factually supported claim of prejudice from the delay. In fact, unlike most cases where reinstatement has been denied, the delay was of only a few months duration. The record indicates that there had been considerable preparation for trial, including taking depositions and negotiations which led to settlement of the claim against one of the defendants. Also it is at least a factor to be considered that appellant's former attorney has been ill and has filed an affidavit indicating that he never received the notice of impending dismissal which is required by the rule and that he would have taken action to avoid dismissal if he had been given due notice. Furthermore, there is no entry on the docket sheet indicating that the clerk had sent any such notice, although the rule specifically requires such an entry.⁵  Finally, we feel that in exercising its discretion the court should always be mindful of its obligation to protect the interests of the minor children on whose behalf suits such as this one are brought.

Although none of the above circumstances might of itself require reversal of the District Court's decision, taken together these factors indicate that reinstatement should have been granted.

Reversed.