James T. Morrow, et ux v. Vicki A. Tomsha, et vir ( 2015 )

FILED
DECEMBER 10,2015
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
W A State Court of Appeals, Division III
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
JAMES T. MORROW and DAWN M. )
MORROW, husband and wife, ) No. 32615-2-111
)
Appellants, )
)
v. )
) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
JOHN DOE TOMSHA and VICKI A. )
TOMSHA, husband and wife, )
)
Respondents. )
FEARING, J. - The trial court dismissed James and Dawn Morrow's lawsuit
because their attorney failed to appear at a scheduling conference and then also failed to
appear at a hearing to show cause as to why the suit should not be dismissed. We reverse
and remand for the trial court to determine if defendant Vicki Tomsha suffered prejudice
as the result of the Morrows' counsel's willful misbehavior and to consider if smaller
penalties would be adequate.
FACTS
On February 18,2011, Vicki Tomsha struck James and Dawn Morrow's car while
attempting to turn left onto ~igelow Gulch Road from Forker Road in Spokane County.
No. 32615-2-111
Morrow v. Tomsha
PROCEDURE
On February 18,2014, James and Dawn Morrow filed a summons and complaint
against Vicki Tomsha in superior court. The Morrows alleged that Vicki Tomsha's
negligent driving caused them personal injuries and damages to their automobile. On
February 18, the superior court clerk issued a case assignment notice and order that
scheduled a status conference for May 23,2014 at 9:00 a.m. The order directed the
Morrows to serve a copy of it on T omsha. The Morrows' counsel claims his office never
received this order, or, if it was received, his office failed to insert the order in the
Morrows' case file.
On May 16,2014, a process server served Vicki Tomsha with a copy of the
summons and complaint, but not the status conference notice. On May 22, 2014, the
Morrows filed a declaration of service.
Neither party appeared at the May 23, 2014, case status conference. As a result,
the trial court entered an order to show cause that summoned the Morrows and Vicki
Tomsha to appear in court on June 6, 2014, at 8:30 a.m. The order notified the parties
that failure to comply with the order "will result in dismissal with prejudice." Clerk's
Papers (CP) at 10. The court mailed a copy of the order only to the Morrows' counsel's
office. Counsel already had two hearings scheduled in superior court for the morning of
June 6: a trial setting scheduling conference at 8:30 a.m. and a motion hearing at 9:00
2
No. 32615-2-III
Morrow v. Tomsha
a.m. Counsel did not contact the trial court issuing the order to show cause to disclose
the scheduling conflict or attempt to reschedule the show cause hearing.
On May 29, 2014, Vicki Tomsha, through counsel, entered a notice of appearance
and sent a copy of the notice to the Morrows' counsel office. Plaintiffs' counsel did not
forward defense counsel a copy of the show cause order.
On June 6, 2014, both parties failed to appear at the show cause hearing. The
Morrows' counsel attended his other two hearings at superior court that day, which
hearings concluded at 10:00 a.m. Counsel then returned to his office, telephoned the trial
court's judicial assistant, and left a voicemail regarding his conflicts. The judicial
assistant did not return counsel's call. On June 6, the trial court entered an order of
dismissal that found: "that the case is, in fact, inactive and good cause exists for
dismissal. Parties have failed to appear." CP at 14. The court mailed copies of the order
to both legal counsel.
On June 13,2014, James and Dawn Morrow filed a motion for reconsideration
that requested vacation of the order of dismissal. In support of this motion, the Morrows'
counsel filed a declaration identifying his errors and arguing that dismissal was not a
proper sanction. Counsel argued that his inattention prejudiced no party, nor violated CR
41.
3
No. 32615-2-III
Morrow v. Tomsha
The trial court denied James and Dawn Morrows' motion for reconsideration. The
court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law, the relevant portions of which
declared:
Plaintiffs' counsel in his affidavit does not explain why he did not
contact this department until after the show cause hearing had already taken
place and instead indicates that he had conflicts on his schedule before the
Honorable Kathleen O'Connor at the same time. Further, counsel does not
explain how a regularly scheduled case scheduling order that is provided in
virtually every civil case filed in Spokane County Superior Court providing
a status conference date and time was completely overlooked.
Orders generated by the Court setting forth a time and date for status
conferences are true orders of the Court that parties and counsel are
expected to follow.
Here, counsel offers no viable excuse or basis to explain or
otherwise make clear why counsel could not have notified this department
in advance of two separate hearings that counsel would either be unable to
appear or had schedule conflicts. Instead, counsel simply failed to appear
at both hearings and then asks the Court to set aside a valid order of
dismissal necessitated only by counsel's failure to properly note or
seriously consider the importance of appearing at regularly scheduled Court
hearings.
CP at 25-27. No trial court finding mentions any prejudice to Vicki Tomsha
resulting from the lack of appearance of the Morrows at any hearing or because of
any delay in the proceeding. The record does not disclose whether the trial court
considered sanctions lesser than dismissal of the suit.
LA W AND ANALYSIS
James and Dawn Morrow argue on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion
4
No. 32615-2-III
Morrow v. Tomsha
in dismissing their case after their attorney failed to appear at the case status conference
hearing and a show cause hearing. They argue that dismissal is a disproportionate
sanction in light of the lack of evidence that their counsel's absence at the two hearings
was willful and the lack of prejudice to the opposing party. The Morrows maintain that
the trial court's finding that the case was "inactive" is not supported by the record and
that the court should have considered lesser sanctions before ordering dismissal.
Vicki Tomsha urges this court to affirm the trial court's dismissal of the Morrows'
suit and argues that the trial court properly exercised its authority under CR 41 to dismiss
a case for noncompliance with court rules. Tomsha also argues that opposing counsel
willfully failed to appear at the show cause hearing since he had notice of the hearing and
provided no explanation for his failure to contact the court and explain the scheduling
conflict.
We join in the trial court's dissatisfaction with the Morrows' counsel's conduct.
But we agree with James and Dawn Morrow that the trial court failed to follow critical
principles before dismissing the action. Therefore, we remand to the trial court to review
whether Vicki Tomsha was prejudiced by opposing counsel's dilatory and unreasonable
behavior and to consider whether lesser sanctions suffice.
A trial court's order dismissing a case for noncompliance with court orders or
rules is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Apostolis v. City o/Seattle, 101 Wn. App. 300,
303, 3 PJd 198 (2000). A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is manifestly
5
No. 32615-2-III
Morrow v. Tomsha
unreasonable or based on untenable grounds. Apostolis, 101 Wn. App. at 303. Our trial
court did not follow established law before dismissing the suit.
Spokane County Superior Court Local Administrative Rule (LAR) 0.4.1 provides
in part:
(b) Clerk Index Sheet, Case Assignment Notice and Order ... [T]he
clerk will issue and file a Case Assignment Notice and Order with a status
conference date and will provide one copy to the party filing the initial
pleading and one copy to the assigned court department. The
plaintiff/petitioner may serve a copy of the Case Assignment Notice and
Order on the defendants/respondents along with the initial pleadings.
Otherwise, the plaintiff/petitioner shall serve the Case Assignment Notice
and Order on the defendants/respondents within ten days after the later of:
(1) the filing of the initial pleadings, or (2) service ofthe
defendant's/respondent's first response to the initial pleadings whether that
first response is a notice of appearance, an answer, or a CR 12 motion.
(d) Status Conference and Case Schedule Order. All attorneys of
record and/or pro se parties must attend a status conference with the
assigned judge on the date and time designated by the Case Assignment
Notice.
(g) Enforcement.
(I) Failure to comply with the Civil or Domestic Case Schedule
Orders may be grounds for imposition of sanctions, including dismissal, or
terms.
(2) The Court, on its own initiative or on motion of a party, may
order an attorney or party to show cause why sanctions or terms should not
be imposed for failure to comply with the Civil or Domestic Case Schedule
Orders established by these rules.
(3) Ifthe Court finds that an attorney or party has failed to comply
with the Civil or Domestic Case Schedule Orders and has no reasonable
excuse, the Court may order the attorney or party to pay monetary sanctions
to the Court, or terms to any other party who has incurred expenses as a
result ofthe failure to comply, or both; in addition, the Court may impose
such other sanctions as justice requires.
6
No. 32615-2-III
Morrow v. Tomsha
In addition to the authority to dismiss a case vested by LAR 0.4.1, a trial court has
discretionary authority to manage its own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and
expeditious disposition of cases. Woodhead v. Disc. Waterbeds, Inc., 78 Wn. App. 125,
129, 896 P.2d 66 (1995). CR 41 likewise vests a trial court with authority to dismiss a
case on its own motion for noncompliance with court orders or rules, so long as dismissal
is not otherwise barred by the remaining provisions of the rule. Walker v. Bonney-
Watson Co., 64 Wn. App. 27,37,823 P.2d 518 (1992).
Under Washington policy, courts do not to resort to dismissal lightly. Woodhead
v. Disc. Waterbeds, Inc., 78 Wn. App. at 129-30. However, when a court finds that a
party acted with willful and deliberate disregard of reasonable court orders and has
prejudiced the other side as a result, dismissal may be warranted. Woodhead, 78 Wn.
App. at l30; Anderson v. Mohundro, 24 Wn. App. 569, 575, 604 P.2d 181 (1979). A
violation of a court order without reasonable excuse will be deemed willful. Allied Fin.
Servs., Inc. v. Mangum, 72 Wn. App. 164, 168, 864 P.2d 1,871 P.2d 1075 (1993). A trial
court exercising its authority to dismiss a case for violation of court orders and rules must
explicitly find that a party's failure to comply was willful and prejudiced the opposing
party. Woodhead, 78 Wn. App. at l31-32. The court must also consider on the record
whether a lesser sanction will suffice before resorting to dismissal. Woodhead, 78 Wn.
App. at l32; White v. Kent Med. Ctr., Inc., P.s., 61 Wn. App. 163, 176, 810 P.2d 47
No. 32615-2-III
Morrow v. Tomsha
(1991).
Woodhead v. Discount Waterbeds, Inc., 78 Wn. App. 125 (1995) illustrates the
findings needed for the trial court to dismiss a suit when a party disobeys a scheduling
order. Jerry Woodhead sued Discount Waterbeds and John Nees for breach oflease. The
trial court issued a scheduling order directing Woodhead to file confirmation of service
by a certain date. Woodhead failed to serve any defendant by the deadline and thus Nees
filed a motion to dismiss for failure to comply with King County Local Rule 4.2 and the
scheduling order. In the alternative, Nees asked the court to impose lesser sanctions. The
trial court found that Woodhead willfully failed to comply with the court rules and
scheduling order, that such failure prejudiced defendants, and that Woodhead's counsel
deliberately misled the court. This court affirmed. We observed that the lower court
entered the requisite findings of willfulness and prejudice and the record reflected that the
trial court considered, but declined to impose, lesser sanctions than dismissal. The
opinion does not disclose the nature of the prejudice to the defendants and Woodhead did
not challenge the finding of prejudice on appeal.
Our trial court did not explicitly find that James and Dawn Morrow willfully failed
to appear at the show cause hearing. Nevertheless, the court found, in its order denying
the Morrows' motion for reconsideration, that the Morrows' attorney provided "no viable
excuse or basis to explain or otherwise make clear" why he failed to make arrangements
with anyone at the court regarding his scheduling conflict on June 6. CP at 27. The
8
No. 32615-2-111
Morrow v. Tomsha
record substantially supports this conclusion. As noted above, violating a court order
without a reasonable excuse is tantamount to a willful violation. Allied Fin. Servs., Inc.
v. Mangum, 72 Wn. App. at 168 (1993). Thus, we reject the Morrows' contention that
their violation of the court order was unintentional.
We adopt James and Dawn Morrow's observation that the trial court entered no
finding that the Morrows' failure to comply with the show cause order prejudiced Vicki
Tomsha. Nor did the trial court consider on the record whether it could impose lighter
sanctions to compel ongoing compliance with its orders. In light of the absence of such
findings and evidence supporting the findings, we reverse the trial court's dismissal of the
suit. We remand for the trial court to review whether Vicki Tomsha suffered prejudice.
Dismissal will be warranted only with a finding of prejudice, but even then the trial court
must consider whether a lesser sanction suffices to address the willful violation ofthe
scheduling order. In the absence of prejudice, the trial court should exercise its
discretion in imposing sanctions commensurate with the violation ofthe order but short
of dismissal.
CONCLUSION
We reverse the trial court's dismissal of James and Dawn Morrow's complaint.
We remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
9
No. 32615-2-111
Morrow v. Tomsha
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW
2.06.040.
WE CONCUR:
;}7£iotU
Siddoway, C.J.tJ
· ~f
10