![]() ![]() If a motion is filed and denied, the clerk shall make the entry promptly after the denial. If a motion has not been filed under section (e) of this Rule, the clerk shall enter on the docket "Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or prosecution without prejudice" 30 days after service of the notice. On motion filed at any time before 30 days after service of the notice, the court for good cause shown may defer entry of the order of dismissal for the period and on the terms it deems proper. ![]() When an action is subject to dismissal pursuant to this Rule, the clerk, upon written request of a party or upon the clerk's own initiative, shall serve a notice on all parties pursuant to Rule 1-321 that an order of dismissal for lack of jurisdiction or prosecution will be entered after the expiration of 30 days unless a motion is filed under section (e) of this Rule. ![]() (d) Notification of Contemplated Dismissal. An action is subject to dismissal for lack of prosecution at the expiration of one year from the last docket entry, other than an entry made under this Rule, Rule 2-131, or Rule 2-132, except that an action for limited divorce or for permanent alimony is subject to dismissal under this section only after two years from the last such docket entry. We explain, but initially note that there is no dispute as to the basis for dismissal under Rule 2-507, only to the procedure in initiating the process. Because of our disposition, we shall not address question two. We shall vacate the judgment of dismissal and remand as the court made an error of law in granting the motion. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying appellant's Motion to Reconsider without a hearing? Was appellant properly served with notice of appellee's Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-507 and given the proper time to respond?Ģ. Appellant presents two questions, which we rephrase:ġ. Appellant filed a motion to reconsider on March 25 and requested a hearing on the motion the motion was denied on April 13 without a hearing. The circuit court dismissed this case on March 17, 1993. Miller states that he then contacted Fiore and asked that Fiore request that the court allow Miller fifteen days from March 11 to respond. The service Miller received on March 11 indicated that it had originally been mailed on February 19, 1993. Miller admits receiving service on March 11, 1993. Fiore (Fiore), as a courtesy to Miller, attempted to ascertain his correct address and remailed the motion on March 9, 1993. The service was returned by the post office as undeliverable. Miller (Miller), on February 19, 1993, at his address of record in this case. In fact, appellant had filed no papers for over three years and appellee had filed no papers for almost two years.Īppellee certified in his motion to dismiss that it was mailed to appellant's attorney, Michael J. ![]() On February 23, 1993, appellee filed a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-507(c), alleging that appellant had made no attempt to prosecute his case, that there had been no docket entries for more than one year, and that the inaction was without justification or excuse. Appellee subsequently deposed appellant and noted several other depositions, none of which apparently took place. This was the last paper filed by appellant before the case was dismissed. On November 7, 1989, appellant filed supplemental answers to appellee's interrogatories. It initially denied appellee's motion to dismiss for failure to comply with discovery. The circuit court issued several orders compelling discovery. Appellee answered the complaint and filed several subsequent requests for discovery some were complied with and some were not. Ramsburg, for injuries sustained in an automobile accident. On April 10, 1987, appellant sued appellee, William M. Robert Graham Fiore, Annapolis, for appellee.Īrgued before ALPERT, BLOOM and CATHELL, JJ.Īppellant, John Frederick Thomas, appeals the dismissal of his complaint by the Circuit Court for Montgomery County and that court's denial of his motion for reconsideration. Miller (Miller & Associates, on the brief), Alexandria, for appellant. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |