CALAWAY v JONES
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 80-241 I N THE SUPREME COURT O T E STATE O MONTANA F H F 1981 TIMOTHY J. C L W Y AA A , P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, VS. SID JONES, Defendant and A p p e l l a n t . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e E i g h t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County o f Cascade. Honorable H. W i l l i a m Coder, J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For A p p e l l a n t : Randono & Donovan, G r e a t F a l l s , Montana F o r Respondent: Marra, Wenz, Johnson & Hopkins, G r e a t F a l l s , Montana S u b m i t t e d on b r i e f s : Decided: Filed: I/ v 4 Y Clerk December 11, 1980 MAR 4 - 1981 Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. D a l y d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of t h e C o u r t . T h i s i s an a p p e a l by t h e d e f e n d a n t from t h e D i s t r i c t Court's refusal set to aside a judgment in favor of the p l a i n t i f f and a d i s m i s s a l o f d e f e n d a n t ' s c o u n t e r c l a i m i n t h e E i g h t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Cascade County. On December 5, 1972, Timothy Calaway J. filed a c o m p l a i n t a g a i n s t S i d J o n e s s e e k i n g damages f o r t h e l o s s o f a p o t a t o c r o p a l l e g e d l y c a u s e d by J o n e s ' s f a i l u r e t o p r o v i d e an i r r i g a t i o n system. the loss owing and from filed J o n e s d e n i e d any r e s p o n s i b i l i t y a for counterclaim and Calaway. complaint Jones seeking both 12, 1977, filed third party relief and a affirmative S i n p s o n Timber Company and B. May sums due also indemnification against Parker On alleging I r r i g a t i o n Supply, F. G o o d r i c h Company. Simpson Timber Company d i s m i s s t h e t h i r d p a r t y c o m p l a i n t f o r want o f The remaining motion. third party Inc., defendants Following a h e a r i n g , later moved to prosecution. joined in the t h e m o t i o n was g r a n t e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t on J u n e 7 , 1 9 7 7 . J o n e s a p p e a l e d t h e o r d e r of d i s m i s s a l t o t h i s C o u r t . W e affirmed the District Court's order on J u n e 28, 1978, f i n d i n g t h a t J o n e s had f a i l e d t o t a k e a n y s i g n i f i c a n t a c t i o n towards a f i n a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n of by his appear failure at a to timely scheduled ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 7 7 Mont. Following respond interrogatories S e e Calaway v. and Jones 516, 582 P.2d 756. t h i s Court's a f f irmation of motion t o withdraw a s a t t o r n e y of was to deposition. of J o n e s ' s t h i r d p a r t y complaint, motion the case as characterized granted by the George N. the dismissal McCabe f i l e d a record for Jones. District Court This on November 2, After substitute waiting eight counsel, Calaway, Counsel months "Notice to Appoint "Notice of Readiness for on or for Jones August Appear Trial." 1, in Both to secure 1979, filed a and a Person" notices had been s e r v e d on J o n e s by t h e C a s c a d e C o u n t y s h e r i f f on J u l y 2 1 , 1979. On A u g u s t 6 , 1 9 7 9 , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s s u e d a n o r d e r f o r p r e t r i a l c o n f e r e n c e and d i r e c t e d t h a t c o p i e s o f t h e same be s e n t t o t h e r e s p e c t i v e c o u n s e l f o r t h e p a r t i e s . Included i n t h e o r d e r was t h e f o l l o w i n g p r o v i s i o n : " T h a t i n e v e n t of a f a i l u r e o f a p a r t y o r p a r t i e s t o a p p e a r , p u r s u a n t t o t h i s O r d e r , an ex p a r t e h e a r i n g s h a l l be h e l d and a n a p p r o p r i a t e Judgment r e n d e r e d o r d i s m i s s a l ordered, unless continued, pursuant to r e q u e s t made a t l e a s t 48 h o u r s i n a d v a n c e , f o r good c a u s e shown." Jones's counsel of withdrawn copy of record, with t h e o r d e r was s e n t t o h i s p r e v i o u s G e o r g e McCabe, court approval even some though nine McCabe months had earlier. upon r e c e i v i n g t h e o r d e r , s t a t e s h e f o r w a r d e d i t t o McCabe, J o n e s by o r d i n a r y m a i l , together with a carbon copy o f a l e t t e r s e n t t o t h e d i s t r i c t j u d g e who s i g n e d t h e o r d e r and a n o t e s u g g e s t i n g t h a t J o n e s c o n t a c t an a t t o r n e y . The l e t t e r McCabe s e n t t o t h e d i s t r i c t j u d g e was d a t e d A u g u s t 2 0 , 1 9 7 9 . I t s t a t e d t h a t McCabe had record and pretrial that he conference was withdrawn a s J o n e s ' s a t t o r n e y of sending directly to a copy Jones. of the order McCabe for further t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e o r d e r and accompanying l e t t e r would h a v e b e e n m a i l e d by h i s s e c r e t a r y a s a m a t t e r o f r o u t i n e . J o n e s d e n i e s h a v i n g r e c e i v e d any c o r r e s p o n d e n c e from McCabe o r a copy o f t h e o r d e r f o r p r e t r i a l c o n f e r e n c e . Jones failed to pretrial conference. District Court, judgment i n f a v o r of Jones's appear counterclaim. a As on October at the result 1, September of 1979, this 27, 1979, failure, issued an the order of Calaway and a n o r d e r o f d i s m i s s a l o f The judgment was for $10,379.23, t o g e t h e r w i t h c o s t s and i n t e r e s t a t a r a t e o f 6 p e r c e n t p e r annum from S e p t e m b e r 1, 1 9 7 1 . On November 1 5 , 1 9 7 9 , J o n e s moved t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r a n o r d e r s e t t i n g a s i d e t h e judgment and d i s m i s s a l o f h i s counterclaim. Following a hearing, d e n i e d t h e m o t i o n on May 1 6 , 1 9 8 0 . The issue presented the District Court J o n e s now a p p e a l s . for is review whether the its d i s c r e t i o n i n denying t h e motion D i s t r i c t Court abused t o s e t a s i d e t h e judgment and o r d e r o f d i s m i s s a l . The s o l e f a c t p r e s e n t e d t o move t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e trial court was a contention by Jones that he failed to r e c e i v e any n o t i c e o f t h e 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 . Entering prejudice a default judgment or dismissal with i s a d r a s t i c s a n c t i o n t o impose a s a remedy f o r f a i l i n g t o attend a p r e t r i a l conference. Consequently, the t r i a l c o u r t s h o u l d o n l y r e s o r t t o s u c h a remedy i n e x t r e m e s i t u a t i o n s where t h e r e is a c l e a r r e c o r d o f c o n t i n u a l d e l a y , a b u s e and d i s r e g a r d o f S e e S i l a s v. party. 1 9 7 8 ) , 586 F.2d 370 U.S. U.S. the court's S e a r s , Roebuck 626, 82 S . C t . Throughout 1 3 8 6 , 8 L.Ed.2d 1 1 5 , 9 L.Ed.2d this action a t t i t u d e of unresponsiveness. failure & Co., Inc. (5th Cir. 382; L i n k v. Wabash R a i l r o a d Company ( 1 9 6 2 ) , 8 7 3 , 83 S . C t . Jones's a u t h o r i t y by t h e e r r a n t to timely 734, r e h . d e n i e d 371 112. Jones has displayed an Such a t t i t u d e i s e v i d e n c e d by respond to interrogatories; to a p p e a r a t d e p o s i t i o n s ; and i n h i s f a i l u r e t o s e e k s u b s t i t u t e c o u n s e l f o r more t h a n e i g h t m o n t h s a f t e r h i s f i r s t a t t o r n e y had withdrawn. process and resolution Based an of upon apparent this t h i s d i s r e g a r d of inclination action, the the judicial to delay the timely District Court would have been w i t h i n t h e p e r m i s s i b l e r a n g e of d i s c r e t i o n i n imposing s a n c t i o n s o f d e f a u l t and d i s m i s s a l f o r f a i l i n g t o a t t e n d t h e pretrial conference if Jones received notice of the c o n f e r e n c e and h i s r e q u i r e d a t t e n d a n c e . The e v i d e n c e c o n c e r n i n g t h e n o t i c e was c o n f l i c t i n g . I n r e v i e w i n g t h e s u b m i t t e d r e c o r d , however, i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o Calaway a s t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y and i n r e l a t i o n to Jones's continual unresponsive attitude, we conclude t h e r e is s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s finding t h a t Jones received and p l a c e o f information concerning t h e t i m e the p r e t r i a l conference. W e f i n d no a b u s e of discretion. The judgment i n f a v o r o f Calaway and t h e d i s m i s s a l o f Jones's counterclaim a s e n t e r e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a r e hereby affirmed. W concur: e p ei enJ u s t i c e 4 Ch f + %
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.
