DocketNumber: TC 4649.
Citation Numbers: 17 Or. Tax 348
Judges: <bold>HENRY C. BREITHAUPT, Judge.</bold>
Filed Date: 2/23/2004
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/13/2023
When the magistrate assigned to the case refused to sign the affidavit, taxpayers refused to proceed with the assigned magistrate. The magistrate then adjourned the conference but allowed taxpayers additional time to decide if they wanted to proceed with their case. Taxpayers refused to proceed with the assigned magistrate and their Complaint was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
Taxpayers then appealed to this division by filing a Complaint. During a case management conference, the county orally moved to dismiss the case. In their written *Page 350 motion to dismiss, the county claimed that taxpayers "failed to state a claim for relief supportable under the law, and failed to preserve their right to appeal."
3. The Magistrate Division does not have a rule governing lack of prosecution. The Regular Division does have such a rule that allows the court to dismiss a case for lack of prosecution if either there has been no action on the case for six months or when any party makes a motion for dismissal. TCR 54 B(3). However, this court has held that the Magistrate Division is not required to follow the Regular Division rules in all cases. SeeDept. of Rev. v. Ritchie Chevron, Inc.,
4, 5. Courts have long had the inherent power to dismiss cases for lack of prosecution. Reed v. First Nat. Bank ofGardiner,
Here taxpayers insisted that the magistrate sign an affidavit relating to the magistrate's commitment to uphold the United States Constitution. No rule of this court or statute permitted such a demand and the magistrate properly refused. Taxpayers then chose to refuse to proceed with the *Page 351
assigned magistrate, apparently unaware that all magistrates of this court are bound by an oath to uphold the constitutions of Oregon and the United States. See ORS
This case is different than the typical lack of prosecution case. Instead of having a silent taxpayer, these taxpayers adamantly and unreasonably refused to proceed with their case unless a magistrate signed their affidavit. Because neither of the conditions found in the Regular Division rule applies in this case, the magistrate was justified in choosing not to follow the Regular Division rule.
Taxpayers failed to inform themselves of basic facts about the court in which they chose to file an action. They then chose to stubbornly refuse to proceed, essentially asserting that their views on procedure must be followed. The magistrate dismissed their case, but only after the taxpayers vigorously reasserted that they would not proceed.
The procedural rules of the Magistrate Division are designed to be simple and easy to follow. The court is here to help taxpayers, but cannot even begin to do so if they are not willing to help themselves by proceeding as requested.2
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Clackamas County Assessor's TCR 21 Motion to Dismiss is granted, and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Complaint is dismissed. Costs to neither party.