Woods v. Computer Sciences Corp.
2011 OK CIV APP 17
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2010Background
- Plaintiff Woods filed a negligence action against Defendant CSC on July 11, 2007 for an incident occurring July 15, 2005.
- CSC moved to compel discovery and/or dismiss after Woods failed to respond; the trial court dismissed the action without prejudice on March 11, 2008.
- Woods later petitioned on February 9, 2010 to vacate the dismissal, arguing irregularity, Rule 11 noncompliance, and unavoidable casualty under 12 O.S. § 1031.
- CSC filed a special appearance and motion to dismiss asserting §100 savings statue inapplicable, lack of irregularity, and that the dismissal was not void.
- The trial court granted CSC’s motion to dismiss; the dismissal order was entered July 9, 2010.
- Woods appeals by accelerated, Rule 1.36, and the Court submits without briefing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of §100 savings statute | Woods argues §100 allows refiling after dismissal | §100 does not apply to a petition to vacate under §1031 | §100 not applicable; vacation governed by §1031 |
| Vacation under §1031(3) irregularity | Irregularity in obtaining the judgment due to lack of notice and missing signature voids the order | Not an irregularity; proper notice and form complied with, Rule 4 controls | Court did not abuse discretion; irregularity grounds rejected |
| Vacation under §1031(7) unavoidable casualty | Health issues prevented timely response to discovery and filing | No showing health barrier prevented action; evidence insufficient | No abuse of discretion; cannot vacate on §1031(7) |
| Effect of local court rules vs. state rules | Failure to strictly follow Local Rule 11 voids the order | State Rule 4 controls; local rules cannot override | No voiding due to local rule noncompliance; consistent with Rule 4 |
Key Cases Cited
- Edge v. Security Bldg. & Loan Ass'n, 45 P.2d 1108 (OK 1935) (irregularity in obtaining a judgment is a fact-specific discretionary matter)
- Hassell v. Texaco, Inc., 372 P.2d 233 (OK 1962) (application to vacate judgment rests in sound discretion)
- Rollow v. Frost & Saddler, 154 P.542 (OK 1916) (compliance with vacating procedures can be substantial)
- St. John Med. Ctr. v. Brown, 125 P.3d 700 (OK CIV APP 2005) (unavoidable casualty/misfortune analysis considers gravity of neglect)
- American Bank of Commerce v. Chavis, 651 P.2d 1321 (OK 1982) (causes for vacation under §1031(7) discussed)
- Ferguson Enters., Inc. v. H. Webb Enters., Inc., 13 P.3d 480 (OK 2000) (abuse-of-discretion standard for vacating judgments)
- Moneypenney v. Dawson, 141 P.3d 549 (OK 2006) (statute of limitations burden on defendant; de novo review standard noted)