Hasbrouck v. Bernstein Management Corporation, 312 A.3d 1223

Eric Hasbrouck, representing himself, sued Joshua Bernstein for injuries from a car accident.
Hasbrouck missed the 9:00 a.m. required arrival at court on the first day of trial, arriving at 9:57 a.m.; the case was dismissed at 9:40 a.m. for want of prosecution.
Hasbrouck claimed he called the court at 9:04 a.m. to notify he would be late and cited various personal reasons for his tardiness.
The trial court refused to vacate the dismissal, holding Hasbrouck did not show good cause for being late or for not contacting the judge’s chambers directly.
The dismissal, while labeled "without prejudice," was effectively with prejudice due to the expired statute of limitations.
On appeal, Hasbrouck argued the dismissal was an abuse of discretion and that the court should have considered less severe sanctions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Appropriateness of Dismissal for Tardiness	Court should not have dismissed for single, non-willful tardiness, and should have considered lesser sanctions	Dismissal proper because Hasbrouck failed to appear and did not directly notify chambers	Reversed: Dismissal unwarranted without consideration of lesser sanctions and no finding of intentional or habitual tardiness
Good Cause Standard	Good cause for vacating dismissal considers whether outright dismissal is justified, not just cause for tardiness	Good cause not shown; Hasbrouck’s excuses insufficient and did not follow notification procedure	Good cause standard was misapplied by trial court; lesser sanctions should be considered
Prejudice to Opposing Party	No prejudice to Bernstein; only minor delay caused	Tardiness was disruptive and merited dismissal	No real prejudice shown; minor delays not sufficient for dismissal
Prior Notification Requirement	Called court information line at 9:04 a.m., followed what he thought was procedure	Should have directly contacted the judge’s chambers, as provided	Failure to contact chambers not willful misconduct and not grounds for dismissal

District of Columbia v. Serafin, 617 A.2d 516 (D.C. 1992) (dismissal under Rule 41(b) is an extreme sanction and should be imposed only sparingly)
Techniarts Video, Inc. v. 1631 Kalorama Assocs., 572 A.2d 1051 (D.C. 1990) (trial courts must consider lesser sanctions before dismissal for want of prosecution)
LaPrade v. Lehman, 490 A.2d 1151 (D.C. 1985) (dismissal appropriate only for deliberate or contumacious conduct; costs or fees as lesser sanctions)
Ali v. Xing, 708 A.2d 266 (D.C. 1998) (reversing dismissal as sanction for negligent but non-deliberate late arrival to trial)
Landise v. Mauro, 141 A.3d 1067 (D.C. 2016) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order must be based on willful, not inadvertent, conduct)