WESTLAND v WEINMEISTER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 93-047 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1993 ROBERT WESTLAND and WESTLAND RANCH, INC., a Montana corporation, Plaintiffs and Appellants, -vsGERALD WEINMEISTER and UNITED GRAIN CORPORATION, Defendants and Respondents. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fifteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Roosevelt, The Honorable M. James So&e, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellants: Robert Hurly, Attorney at Law, Glasgow, Montana Peter 0. Maltese, Attorney at Law, Sidney, Montana For Respondents: K. Dale Schwanke: Jardine, Stephenson, Blewett & Weaver, Great Falls, Montana ,~ , Submitted on Briefs: Decided: kL #~\ June 10, 1993 July 20, 1993 Justice John Conway Harrison'delivered the Opinion of the Court. Robert Westland and Westland Ranch, Inc., appeal from an order of the Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Roosevelt dismissing their claims for failure to prosecute. In May 1985, appellants (Westland) County, We affirm. delivered approximately 17,000 bushels of wheat to an elevator operated by United Grain Company at Macon, near Wolf Point, Montana. Elevator personnel issued scale tickets showing a net delivery of 16,236 bushels and mixed Westland's wheat with other wheat for shipment and sale. As the parties did not agree on the grade and price of Westland's wheat, the elevator continued to credit 16,236 bushels to Westland. Westland On United was billed periodically for storage costs. February 1987, Company Grain (collectively, 17, Westland filed this action against its and complaining United Grain), Gerald manager, that Weinmeister United Grain had willfully converted its wheat and requesting judgment for actual, compensatory, and punitive damages. United Grain admitted commingling and selling Westland's wheat but denied that it was required to store it separately or to redeliver it to Westland on demand. It counterclaimed for Westland's unpaid freight and storage charges. Westland served interrogatories in February 1987: United Grain responded in April. 1988; Westland United Grain responded in June. undertaken until October 1990. 2 served interrogatories in May No further discovery was The District Court conducted a scheduling conference by telephone on May 2, 1989. The parties agreed to complete discovery by August 11, 1989; this deadline was extended to November 1989 on United Grain's motion. On November 22, 1989, United Grain moved to extend the deadline another 120 days. December The court issued an order on 5, 1989, extending the discovery deadline "indefinitely." Westland wrote letters to the court concurring in both extensions. In October 1990, United Grain deposed several witnesses, including appellant Robert Westland. Westland deposed respondent Westland took no further action in Weinmeister in February 1991. this case until United Grain moved to dismiss the complaint in 1992. On June 12, 1992, United Grain moved to dismiss Westland's complaint for failure to prosecute, M.R.Civ.P. 6, pursuant to Rule 41(b), Westland did not file a formal response, but on August 1992, its lawyer telephoned Judge Sorte to ask for an extension of time to respond, until August 21, 1992. agreed to this extension. Nevertheless, Judge Sorte apparently he entered an order dismissing the complaint on August 13, 1992. Westland wrote to the judge reminding him that he had granted an extension, and on August 21, 1992 it filed its brief responding to United Grain's motion to dismiss. On September 8, 1992, dismissing the complaint, the District Court vacated its order saying that it had issued that order United Grain's motion to dismiss "inadvertently and by mistake." 3 was denied, and Westland was ordered to arrange a pre-trial scheduling conference as soon as possible. Two days later, United Grain filed its response to Westland's August 21 brief, and on September 25, 1992, the District Court reinstated its judgment of dismissal, announcing that "the court now being fully advised has determined that its initial decision to dismiss [Westland's] complaint and claims and to enter final judgment was correct." Westland appealed. The sole issue on appeal is whether the District Court abused its discretion in dismissing Westland's complaint for failure to prosecute. Rule 41(b), M.R.Civ.P., authorizes a district court to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute. It provides in pertinent part: For failure of the plaintiff to prosecute . . . a defendant may move for dismissal of an action or of any claim against the defendant. . . . Unless the court in its order for dismissal otherwise specifies, a dismissal under this subdivision . . . operates as an adjudication upon the merits. A district court has broad discretion in determining whether to dismiss, and its decision will be overturned only if it has abused that discretion. Shackleton v. Neil (1983), 207 Mont. 96, 101, 672 P.2d 1112, 1115; Thomas v. Wilson (1989), 236 Mont. 33, 35, 767 P.2d 1343, 1344. In deciding whether a district court has abused its discretion in dismissing an action for failure to prosecute, we consider the following four factors: 1) the plaintiff's diligence in prosecuting his claims: 2) the prejudice to the defense caused by the plaintiff's delay; 3) the availability of alternate sanctions; and 4) 4 the existence of a warning in danger of dismissal. to plaintiff Becky v. Norwest Bank Dillon, N.A. (1990), 1011, consider 1015. We considerations merits, docket and the general the plaintiff Becky, 798 presumption several to show on United extend three in information submitted to been provided of a public policy hearing need prompt the manage to on its disposition of dismissal demonstrate prosecution of unreasonable defendant cause must or a and his delay shifts that claim. raises burden excuse reasonable the for a to his 672 P.2d at 1115. attempts which to United justify Grain in delay moved for for 1987 It the deadlines postponed times cites also in United and in 1989 rescheduled Grain State Grain the train included were Grain's February United the this to delayed the good requested asked had right court's An deadlines. also Westland whether is by an listing extension responding moved to twice depositions of on to two 1990. Westland to to Grain discovery occasions light encouraging for 1015. prejudice interrogatories as at occasions time. of unreasonably Westland Here, trial moving Shackleton, inaction. the case 245 Mont. 1, 8, 798 P.2d in plaintiff's policy party P.2d plaintiff factors his 798 P.2d at 1015. has of a against w, First, the favor balanced lawsuits. the that these that to 1991, docked during document Laboratory loads failure of wheat for information. 5 wheat and in to provide depositions. samples provide which quality. to had information Westland's United it Grain wheat never The District Court concluded that five years (1987-92) is an unreasonably long time in which to bring as simple a case as this one to trial, and that Westland had not offered a reasonable justification or excuse for this delay. All of the delays Westland We agree. attributed to United Grain, together, account for only a few months out of the five years that elapsed between the filing of the complaint and United Grain's motion to dismiss. Moreover, Westland consented to all of United Grain's requests for extension. Thus, apart from its February 1991 deposition of respondentweinmeister, Westland did nothing to bring this case to trial between May 1987, when it answered United Grain's counterclaim, and August 1992, when it responded to United Grain's motion to dismiss. As for the information United Grain failed to provide, Westland itself contributed to this delay by failing to answer United Grain's letter of February 22, 1991, in which United Grain asked Westland to confirm the precise information requested. Nor did Westland follow up with United Grain to obtain the information, or move the court to compel production of documents, during the sixteen months that elapsed between the time of its request and United Grain's motion to dismiss. We conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Westland had no reasonable justification or excuse for its failure to prosecute this case between 1987 and 1992. As for the second Becky factor , prejudice to the defense, the 6 District Court concluded correctly that United Grain was presumptively prejudiced by the unexcused delay and therefore was not required to demonstrate that its ability to defend was Becky, 798 P.2d at 1016. impaired. Westland District urges us to remand this case for trial because the Court did not consider the availability of an alternate sanction. third Becky factor, Westland relies on Doug Johns Real Estate, Inc. v. Banta (1990), 246 Mont. 295, 805 P.Zd 1301, in which we stated as a general rule that courts should refrain from dismissing an action "unless there is no other adequate remedy available and the facts adequately call for such a Douq Johns, 805 P.2d at 1303. result." In Doug Johns the district court dismissed a real estate broker's attempt to collect a commission for failure to prosecute, because the broker "did nothing after filing his complaint" and did not even serve the defendants until seven months after filing the action. We reversed, based on letters in the record that appeared to substantiate the broker's contention that the parties had attempted to negotiate a settlement during the seven months. We held that another adequate remedy was available: the district court could have scheduled the case for trial under Rule 16(b)(4), M.R.Civ.P. Here, no evidence of negotiation appears in the record, nor has either party argued, prosecution of the case as the broker did in Douq Johns, that was contingent on negotiations between the parties. 7 the outcome of Further, the delay in this case is much longer than the delay in Doua Johns, with a concomitant increase in the risk of injury to United Grain. We hold that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in deciding that it had "no other choice" than to reinstate dismissal and enter final judgment against Westland. Finally, Westland complains that it was not warned that its case was in danger of being dismissed. In Cox v. Myllymaki (1988), 231 Mont. 320, 752 P.2d 1093, we reversed the district court's dismissal for failure to prosecute because it did not consider the important factors of availability of an alternative sanction and the existence of a warning to the party causing the delay. There, however, we reversed primarily because the plaintiff had offered a reasonable excuse for the delay and the defendant had not demonstrated any actual prejudice. w, 752 P.2d at 1094; see also Becky, 798 P.2d at 1015, reiterating the same factors. Here, delay. Westland did not offer a reasonable excuse for its Neither Rule 41(b), M.R.Civ.P., nor Cox mandates dismissal for lack of warning in the absence of a reasonable excuse for the delay. Moreover, Westland had two months to defend United Grain's motion to dismiss, which was filed in June 1992 but not granted until August 1992. The fact that the District Court temporarily rescinded its dismissal, upon reading Westland's brief, indicated that it was susceptible to persuasion, but Westland failed to pursue this apparent advantage and did not even comply with the court's order to arrange for a pretrial scheduling conference in September 1992. 8 We hold that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Westland's claims for failure to prosecute. AFFIRMED. Justices 9 Justice Terry N. Trieweiler dissenting. I dissent. Of the four factors to be considered in determining whether the District Court abused its discretion, three favor reversal of the District Court. 1. Defendants have shown absolutely no prejudice from the delay to which they contributed and about which they now complain; 2. No warning was ever given to plaintiffs that their case was in danger of dismissal: and 3. There was an obvious alternative available to the District Court. It could simply have set this case for trial and refused any further continuance. Considering these factors in light of the compelling public policy favoring a party's right to a hearing on the merits, I conclude of that the dismissal of plaintiffs' complaint was an abuse discretion and would reverse the District Court. Justice Karla M. Gray joins in the foregoing dissent. 10 July 20, 1993 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the following order was sent by United States mail, prepaid, to the following named: Robert Hurly Attorney at Law P.O. Box 1170 Glasgow, MT 59230 Peter 0. Maltese Attorney at Law P.O. Box 969 Sidney, MT 59270 K. Dale Schwanke Jardine, Stephenson, Blewett & Weaver P.O. Box 2269 Great Falls, MT 59403 ED SMITH CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF MONTANA
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.
