M.J. v. V.S.P.
24-AP-151
Vt.Nov 8, 2024Background
- Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint alleging childhood physical and sexual assault by defendant's employees in 1992, claiming negligence.
- Plaintiff attempted to serve the defendant by U.S. mail and filed a "Proof of Delivery." The court warned that service was improper and allowed additional time for proper service.
- After plaintiff eventually filed proof of service, there was a long period of inactivity. The court issued a notice of possible dismissal under Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b)(1)(i), advising plaintiff to move for default judgment with proper affidavits.
- Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment seeking significant damages but did not include the required sworn affidavit or statutory attestation language.
- The trial court denied the default judgment motion and dismissed the case for failure to comply with procedural requirements, specifically the lack of a proper affidavit under Rule 55 and no action within the court's timeline.
- Plaintiff appealed, arguing the court erred in dismissing his case and in denying his motion for default judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of Default Motion | Signature alone on motion meets affidavit requirement or satisfies the equivalent under perjury laws | No appearance or arguments; defendant did not appear | Motion for default must be supported by notarized affidavit or statutory declaration; plaintiff’s filing insufficient |
| Dismissal Under Rule 41(b)(1)(i) | Dismissal was improper because plaintiff made his motion for default and followed procedure | No appearance or arguments; defendant did not appear | No abuse of discretion; plaintiff did not comply with notice and procedural rules, so dismissal affirmed |
| Application of Rule 60(b) for Relief from Judgment | Relief should be available under Rule 60(b) due to claimed procedural errors | No appearance or arguments; defendant did not appear | Such motions must be filed in the trial court; court focuses instead on default judgment and dismissal issues |
| Leeway for Pro Se Litigants | Court should afford flexibility to self-represented parties' filings | N/A (no argument; no appearance) | Pro se litigants still required to follow procedural rules; leeway does not excuse failure to meet affidavit requirement |
Key Cases Cited
- Brandt v. Menard, 212 Vt. 547 (outlining Vermont and federal Rule 60(b) standards)
- Weed v. Weed, 185 Vt. 83 (defining abuse of discretion and deference due to trial courts)
- State v. Jones, 157 Vt. 553 (trial courts' authority to manage dockets and enforce timeliness)
- Zorn v. Smith, 189 Vt. 219 (pro se litigants must follow rules of civil procedure)
- Bloomer v. Gibson, 180 Vt. 397 (equitable enforcement of rules against pro se litigants is not an abuse of discretion)