Ryan Musick v. Gordon L. Davis

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 09/02/2011 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 ((334) 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 . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS SPECIAL TERM, 2011 2091212 Ryan Musick v. Gordon L. Davis Appeal from Montgomery C i r c u i t Court (CV-09-900089) PITTMAN, Judge. In January sued 2009, Ryan M u s i c k , G o r d o n L. D a v i s , two o t h e r appearing through counsel, named d e f e n d a n t s , f i c t i t i o u s l y named d e f e n d a n t i n t h e Montgomery C i r c u i t asserting claims of negligence, a n d one Court, wantonness, and f r a u d u l e n t 2091212 misrepresentation residence. March concerning Davis, appearing 2009, denying a f f i r m a t i v e defenses. the condition of liability and asserting stipulation i n the case, t o the computerized case-action-summary on A p r i l 6, 2010, t h e t r i a l a "status/scheduling conference" 2010, and c o p i e s of that both to Musick's counsel counsel f o r Musick conference. dismissing judgment, On the the t r i a l 28, court party 2010, " f o r lack of a transmitted However, appeared judgment specifically noted 1 the judgment, a v e r r i n g t h a t h i s c o u n s e l neither at was prosecution"; Musick f i l e d a postjudgment motion t o a l t e r , Civ. s e t t h e case were a p p a r e n t l y either sheet t o be h e l d on A p r i l 13, and t o D a v i s . nor April case order court a b s e n c e f r o m t h e A p r i l 13, 2010, c o n f e r e n c e . 1 asserted Davis. According for various M u s i c k ' s c l a i m s a g a i n s t t h e o t h e r named June 2009, l e a v i n g t o be a d j u d i c a t e d o n l y t h e c l a i m s in used p r o se, answered t h e complaint i n d e f e n d a n t s were d i s m i s s e d p u r s u a n t t o a j o i n t against a that entered in that the p a r t i e s ' Two d a y s later, amend, o r v a c a t e a l s o had represented T h a t j u d g m e n t o f d i s m i s s a l , u n d e r R u l e 4 1 ( b ) , A l a . R. P., " o p e r a t e s as an a d j u d i c a t i o n upon t h e m e r i t s . " 2 2091212 Musick court i n another matter t h a t had been counsel, as a r e s u l t formerly settled pending before the t r i a l two months p r e v i o u s l y a n d t h a t o f an o v e r s i g h t , "apparently d i d not p r o p e r l y i d e n t i f y w h i c h c a s e t h e ... o r d e r was a p p l i c a b l e t o and[,] thinking that calendar the postjudgment the matter hearing." motion. The Musick's had been trial appeal settled, court from d i d not denied that t h e judgment o f d i s m i s s a l was t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h i s c o u r t p u r s u a n t t o A l a . Code 1975, § 12-2-7(6). 2 " R u l e 4 1 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., p r o v i d e s , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : 'For f a i l u r e o f t h e p l a i n t i f f t o p r o s e c u t e o r to comply with [ t h e Alabama Rules of Civil P r o c e d u r e ] o r any o r d e r o f [ t h e ] 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 against the defendant.' I t i s w e l l s e t t l e d that the d e c i s i o n whether t o e n t e r a Rule 41(b) d i s m i s s a l i s w i t h i n t h e sound 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 , and s u c h a d i s m i s s a l w i l l be r e v e r s e d o n l y i f t h e t r i a l c o u r t exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n . However, b e c a u s e dismissal with prejudice i s a drastic sanction, i t should be a p p l i e d o n l y i n extreme situations. Therefore, t h i s court w i l l carefully scrutinize Although Musick, before appealing, f i l e d a motion i n the t r i a l c o u r t s e e k i n g r e l i e f from t h e judgment o f d i s m i s s a l p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 6 0 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. a m o t i o n upon w h i c h t h e a p p e l l a t e r e c o r d r e f l e c t s no r u l i n g b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t the p o s s i b l e c o n t i n u e d pendency o f t h a t motion would not d e s t r o y o u r a p p e l l a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n b e c a u s e s u c h a m o t i o n "does not a f f e c t the f i n a l i t y o f a judgment o r suspend i t s operation." Ex p a r t e R.S.C., 853 So. 2d 228, 233-34 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 002) . 2 3 2091212 orders d i s m i s s i n g an a c t i o n w i t h p r e j u d i c e and o c c a s i o n a l l y w i l l f i n d i t necessary t o s e t them aside. In r e v i e w i n g the t r i a l c o u r t ' s d i s m i s s a l of an a c t i o n , we must d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e r u l i n g i s s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e c o n t a i n e d i n t h e r e c o r d . " Blake v. S t i n s o n , 5 So. (citations omitted). public interest 3d 615, 617-18 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008) F u r t h e r , under Alabama p r e c e d e n t s , i n d i s p o s i n g of litigation on the the m e r i t s is s a i d t o be o v e r c o m e , and t h e " d r a s t i c s a n c t i o n " o f a d i s m i s s a l is deemed w a r r a n t e d , when a clear record of delay, willful d e f a u l t , o r c o n t u m a c i o u s c o n d u c t by t h e p l a i n t i f f e x i s t s . Gill v. C o b e r n , 36 So. In t h i s the t r i a l against case, Davis initiated. 3d 31, approximately Further, that 33 ( A l a . 2009). court dismissed 15 court See months acted Musick's a c t i o n after sua the case sponte, in was the absence of a d i s m i s s a l motion from Davis, 15 d a y s a f t e r parties "status/scheduling had conference" neglected t h a t was bases appearing decision a of r e c o r d t h a t might support to dismiss at the attend s e t 7 days i n advance. the c a s e f o r 15 months and counsel to a c t i o n are (a) the Thus, t h e the t r i a l both sole court's pendency of the (b) t h e n o n a t t e n d a n c e o f M u s i c k o r h i s conference. 4 2091212 In Blake, years we between filing of active held the a motion docket did 4 1 ( b ) , A l a . R. that filing to a of delay an alone C i v . P., approximately amended reinstate a not of complaint case warrant to a and trial dismissal court's under to j u s t i f y the harsh of 5 prejudice." "contumacious conduct" this c a s e w o u l d be the "status/scheduling However, the immediately Rule evidence of contumacious conduct or w i l l f u l default, is insufficient arguably the o p i n i n g t h a t the e x i s t e n c e of such a dormancy p e r i o d , " w i t h o u t dismissal with three So. 3d at appearing conference" upon 620. i n the a b s e n c e o f M u s i c k and The sole record in h i s counsel at on receipt sanction April of the 13, 2010. judgment of d i s m i s s a l , Musick f i l e d a postjudgment motion i n d i c a t i n g that his been and his counsel's inadvertent, a product confusion at the conference had of a c a l e n d a r i n g o v e r s i g h t r e l a t e d t o r a t h e r than a d e l i b e r a t e act on Musick's or h i s counsel's p a r t ; Davis f i l e d n o t h i n g t e n d i n g to rebut b e t w e e n two absence Musick's failure willful by cases, averments. In Gill, a p l a i n t i f f ' s a t t o r n e y was delay or contumacious a similar h e l d not conduct so as calendaring t o amount to to warrant a f f i r m a n c e o f a j u d g m e n t o f d i s m i s s a l f o r want o f p r o s e c u t i o n . 5 2091212 36 So. to 3d a t 33-34. dismiss Thus, w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l Musick's a c t i o n i s a t t r i b u t a b l e court's decision to the length of t i m e t h a t t h e c a s e had b e e n p e n d i n g , t h e f a i l u r e o f M u s i c k o r his counsel both of appeal 3 to a t t e n d the them, that sanction of we must the sua The agree trial with sponte dismissal warranted i n t h i s "status/scheduling conference," Musick's imposition under Rule of 41(b) the was ultimate simply c o u r t ' s judgment of d i s m i s s a l i s r e v e r s e d , not to the t r i a l and court's docket. REVERSED AND Thompson, REMANDED. P.J., and Bryan, Thomas, and Moore, concur. 3 on case. t h e c a u s e i s remanded f o r r e i n s t a t e m e n t active contention or Davis has not favored t h i s 6 court with a brief. JJ.,

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.