GARCIA v. LANE
2017 OK CIV APP 21
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2017Background
- Garcia sued Lane for personal injuries from a 2011 car accident; suit filed Dec. 18, 2012.
- Pretrial occurred May 5, 2014 and the case was ultimately set for jury trial Sept. 14, 2015 after multiple continuances.
- On the morning of trial Garcia filed a last-minute Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice under 12 O.S. § 684; Lane objected and the court heard argument.
- The trial court denied the § 684 motion, ordered the case to proceed, and Garcia's counsel announced he and his client were not ready and the client was not present.
- The court dismissed the case with prejudice for failure to prosecute; judgment entered Nov. 20, 2015. Garcia appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 684 bars a court from denying a post‑pretrial plaintiff motion to dismiss without prejudice | Garcia: § 684 requires the court to grant dismissal without prejudice on plaintiff's request | Lane: After pretrial the statute requires party agreement or court order; court may deny dismissal | Court: § 684 permits the court to deny a post‑pretrial dismissal; legislative text and intent support limiting eleventh‑hour dismissals |
| Whether the trial court had authority to dismiss with prejudice | Garcia: § 684 contains no authority to dismiss with prejudice and dismissal with prejudice is unauthorized | Lane: Court has inherent power to dismiss for failure to prosecute independent of § 684 | Court: Dismissal with prejudice was an exercise of the court's inherent authority to control its docket for failure to prosecute |
| Whether dismissal with prejudice was an abuse of discretion | Garcia: Dismissal deprived him of decision on merits and no adequate justification shown | Lane: Plaintiff was unprepared despite ample notice; defendant suffered prejudice | Court: No abuse of discretion — plaintiff offered no excuse, case was old, defendant incurred preparation costs, and plaintiff failed to be ready on trial day |
| Whether Goins v. Fox requires reversal | Garcia: Goins limits court's power and suggests dismissal with prejudice was improper | Lane: Goins involved different statutory basis and absence of inherent‑power findings; not controlling here | Court: Goins is distinguishable; modern precedent recognizes inherent dismissal power independent of § 683 |
Key Cases Cited
- Boston v. Buchanan, 89 P.3d 1034 (Okla. 2003) (recognizes inherent power to dismiss for failure to prosecute and calls for close appellate scrutiny when dismissal is with prejudice)
- Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (U.S. 1962) (federal recognition of courts' inherent authority to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution)
- Goins v. Fox, 332 P.2d 220 (Okla. 1958) (dismissal with prejudice improper where record lacked statutory or common-law basis; distinguished here)
- McCamey v. Med. Ctrs. of Okla., LLC, 365 P.3d 515 (Okla. Civ. App. 2016) (discusses dismissal for lack of diligence as an aspect of inherent docket control)