*1 Cynda K. K. Bruce DOLAND
Doland, Appellants, COUNTY, Iowa, Appellee.
BOONE
No. 84-785.
Supreme Court Iowa. 13, 1985.
Nov. *2 for dismissal of cases for prosecution
want of and reinstatement of such cases. The issue, determinative how- ever, involves appeal. timeliness
Plaintiffs’ case was pursuant dismissed to rule 215.1 for want of prosecution. Af- ter the district court refused to reinstate case, plaintiffs appealed and we trans- ferred the case to the court of appeals. That court reversed the district rul- ing and ordered the case reinstated. granted defendant’s for further review. We now ap- vacate court of peals decision and appeal. dismiss the 10, 1981, June plaintiff
On K. Do- Bruce injured land was in motorcycle a accident. petition In a filed November 20 in district court, plaintiffs alleged that defendant County responsible Boone for defects in the road on which riding, Doland was negligence and that this caused his motor- cycle injuries. wife, accident and Cyn- His Doland, da K. joined in seeking the action damages for loss consortium. began.
Answer was filed discovery August 8, On the clerk of dis- gave trict court parties both a written 215.1 notice which notified them January 1, case had to prior be tried continuing or an en- the case rule, provided tered as or else pursu- case would be to dismissal ant to the rule. filed an applica- Plaintiffs tion for continuance under rule on 215.1 27, 1983, December and the court set hearing January 16,1984. on the matter for applica- Defendant filed resistance to the At court-reported hearing tion. on held court, January parties 16 before the both argued the motion. Matthias, J. Tyler Bruce Nuzum of & Nuzum, Newton, appellants. attorney Plaintiffs’ contended that delay bringing matter to trial Carlton G. Salmons of & Austin Gaudi- client, injuries of his K. Bruce neer, Moines, appellee. Des Doland, healing vari- been slow reasons, including subsequent injury
ous motorcycle time accident McGIVERIN, Justice. against county this action defendant Boone appeal procedural pending. attorney This raises issues in- Plaintiffs’ told volving the dis- proper interpretation por- court that he the case was believed 1; by operation tions of Iowa on Rule Civil Procedure 215.1 missed of law I. the case under also to Dismissal therefore, the court requested he The dis- Procedure 215.1. Rule Civil to reinstate his oral consider case was trict court ruled court-reported on the was made case which operation for want of of law opposing counsel. presence of record as of under rule 215.1 contin- resisted Defendant was thereafter and that the court *3 the case was ground that uance on the authority grant a motion for without to 31. on December automatically dismissed agree. We continuance. application oral It also resisted is to “assure purpose The of rule 215.1 argued and matter was The to reinstate. diligent prosecution of cases timely and ruling. the court for submitted to Bonar, 337 on the docket.” Miller 1984, 18, court ruled that On 1983). 523, (Iowa rule N.W.2d 526 by operation of law the case was dismissed has petition in which a applies to all cases January 1. The as of rule 215.1 under year prior than one to on file for more been application the oral court then considered clerk the district any July 15.1 The there to all counsel of give and ruled must notice for reinstatement 15, prior August to rein- record in those cases grounds shown for inadequate the case must be tried informing them that rule 215.1. the action under statement of subject January 1 or it by the next will 2, February plaintiffs filed a On further to dismissal. Rule 215.1 January 18 rul- for reconsideration part: pertinent they date filed written ing. the same On assigned and tried All cases shall be such reinstatement, then contend- application for plain- prejudice at or dismissed without application was invalid. the oral ing that satisfactory reasons tiff’s costs unless were heard on those motions Both of grounds for or for want 19, the court denied March March On by application continuance be shown plain- reconsideration and after notice and ruling and thereon reinstatement. application parte. ex tiffs’ written added.) (Emphasis April 17 from all appealed on Plaintiffs interpreted portion this cases have Our transferred the rulings of the court and we applica filed to mean that a of rule 215.1 appeals. That court to the court of case to alone is insufficient tion for continuance ruling and held the district court’s reversed accompanied by unless it is dismissal avoid to reinstate plaintiffs’ application prior continuing the case to an granted because there should have been City date. Koss v. mandatory dismissal delay prosecu- reasonable cause for 153, (Iowa 157 Rapids, Cedar tion of the case. Court, 272 1981); v. Iowa District Brown application for granted defendant’s We 1978); (Iowa Fankell v. N.W.2d 458 R.App.P. 402. review. further (Iowa Schober, Ct. N.W.2d 223 App.1984). er- assigned numerous Defendant has However, controlling issues rors. general regard rule exception An to this address are: by defendant which we raised a case to dismis ing continuance of 1) jurisdic- the district court whether rule 215.1 exists. Schimerow sal under for continuance the motion tion to consider Packers, Inc., 196 N.W.2d v. Iowa ski Beef automatically dis- 1972), whether held “where a 1, 1984; 2) whether as of missed filed and sub continuance is motion for made on the rule 215.1 dead mitted on notice before dismissal, jur trial, court-reported record for reinstatement continuance line for valid; by the trial court while retained ruling thereon were isdiction is the case and advisement.” motion under it has such 3) appeal timely filed. whether 215.1, applicable here. they are not but exceptions in rule are six listed 1. There filing did of a not sanction mere motion but to delinquent hold the plaintiff to a stay continuance dismissal of a case showing good cause on reinstatement.” 215.1, permitted under Note, rule rather we Iowa Rule Mandatory Dis- 215.1— ease, where a motion for continuance had missal Want Prosecution —The been submitted to the court for Flexible Trap, Drake L.Rev. 168 n. advisement, was under and not stand (1973). subject to automatic dismissal. Therefore, we follow the result Plaintiffs cite By- Anderson v. National reached in those cases interpreting amend Inc., Products, 257 Iowa 135 N.W.2d ed rule 215.1 and hold (1965), support proposition continuance must be along filed with an their pre- motion for continuance on file order granting motion, or else the appli automatically vented the case from being cation must have taken under advise Anderson, under 215.1. In ment for ruling by court, prior to the *4 we held that a once motion to continue was mandatory dismissal date to avoid dismis court, on file at one term of the case would sal under rule 215.1. for Motions continu automatically not be and dismissed the mo- ance under rule 215.1 should not be by set tion could be considered at next term the of the court or court administrator for a hear 923, court. Id. at 135 at 603. N.W.2d ing date which is after mandatory the dis However, holding in inap- is Anderson missal date. posite here that following because decision not do believe the result we a 1965 amendment to the rule became ef- unduly reach is harsh.2 weAs stated in fective. Tri-County Greene v. Community School Originally, provided only rule 215.1 for District, 779, (Iowa 1982): 315 N.W.2d 781 means to avoid dismissal under the rule It public is in the interest that cases not provide and did not any for measures of tried or settled within a reasonable time relief subsequent to for dismissal want of should hardship be dismissed. Whatever prosecution. Dismissal under rule 215.1 might by be suffered an occasional liti judgment became a final and the trial court gant whose is is suit thus lost more than had no authority further to or vacate modi- compensated by good general fy the judgment under the rule. Windus the impetus provided by results from Gas, 114, 124, v. Great Plains 254 Iowa rule. 410, 116 (1962); N.W.2d see Iowa Further, seeking of a burden continu- R.Civ.P. 219. Under the amended rule as applicant ance is on he effect, however, or she now in a case has is the whom one to it must have been for want of can apparent in that the case could not by procedure reinstated advance means of the prescribed Therefore, ready Requiring applicant for trial. by the rule itself. as prepare to pointed “[sjince has been a motion for continuance and out the amend- ment either allowing has obtain a on it or to have it reinstatement eased the plight displaced plaintiff by taken under court under Rule advisement be- 215.1, by there tween of should be less incentive for the the time notification the clerk court, 15, mandatory dismissal, trial court avoid August to of no later than adopted by litigation. strong judi- 2. New pace standards the American Bar control the of A manage- reducing Association which relate to is caseflow cial commitment essential to de- and, delay achieved, support position. lay maintaining ment and reduction our once a current provides: One such standard docket. Relating Delay to Standards Court Reduction litigation From the commencement to its (1985). § 2.50 resolution, settlement, by whether trial or commentary following this standard ex- elapsed reasonably required time other than plains, backlogs delay produces "Accumulated events, pleadings, discovery for and court is resources, needlessly that waste increase court unacceptable and should be eliminated. To fees, lawyer cases, create confusion and conflict just enable and efficient resolution court, allocating judges’ time." lawyers litigants, Id. not should January overly that “motions if is not cated need be written as of dismissal burdensome. made trial.” Id. at 824. case
We conclude 1, 1984, as be was dismissed justification holding Some for nor was an order cause it not tried State, in Rheuport offered v. continuance obtained before granting a 1976), where held: we Therefore, correctly the court time. findings by An oral statement of such jurisdiction it was without concluded factfinder, open made court entertain presence of the defendant and recorded continuance. reporter, substantially is equivalent to the applications re- written statement Viability II. [of for relied on for evidence and reasons revo instatement. probation] required by parole cation A. The oral reinstate- Brewer, Morrissey U.S. [v. the district court did not ment. Because 2593, 2604, 33 92 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d authority entertain the motion have (1972)]. continuance, next must consider Therefore, requiring reason one writ- application to rein- whether provide party ing If with notice. appli- the oral state valid. valid, for reinstatement was then the cation justification requiring A second untimely. appeal may have been writing is found Lutz Iowa Swine *5 109, Exports Corp., 300 N.W.2d 111 Rule for reinstatement of 215.1 1981), where we stated: as a case dismissed for want follows: Initially, many recognize we there are reinstatement, rulings oral made valid orders dur-
Application for such set- therefor, ing objections trial. These arise from ting grounds shall be forth Generally, from the and oral motions. within six months date of evidence filed rulings these need not be reduced to dismissal. writing as an accurate and available added.) (Emphasis by reporter. is preserved record court that, Plaintiffs now contend because 624.9, The Section Code application for rule states an reinstatement Thus, preferring a second reason filed, only will shall be a written one com- writing is have a record of what oc- rule; and, ply with the terms of the there- in proceeding. curred fore, plaintiffs’ application oral made at the hearing invalid as was the 16 was Ritter, Transportation, v. In Robco Inc. subsequent ruling par- on Both court’s it. 497, (Iowa 1984), 500 we disal- argued applica- the merits of the oral ties plaintiff what characterized an lowed hearing at the record- tion which was made in motion. Plaintiff this case contend- oral reporter. by ed a court phone presiding district ed that call to judge equivalent of an Iowa We have addressed issue 179(b) motion to reconsider rul- R.Civ.P. application an oral for reinstate- whether signifi- legal ing. grant We refused to valid, but our ment under 215.1 alleged to that oral motion cance which have dealt with oral motions cases record was there was no indication of other rules of and orders context made, motion or nor service of the procedure provide guidance. some civil given opposing counsel. notice it Corp., In v. Purex 256 Zimmerman oral prerequisites are a valid These 822, (1964), 824 motion. generally agreed that “motions must be motions The federal courts allow oral writing given.” in and notice thereof How- during a recorded ever, orders to be made Iowa Rule of we noted that Civil motions, proceeding are before where both sides governs 117 which indi- Procedure
875 Co., court. v. See Tamari Bache and whether written applica- second S.A.L., 469, (Lebanon) (7th 729 F.2d 472 tion for reinstatement legal signifi- Cir.1984) (where proceedings give oral liti- If cance. it had legal significance, then gant produced, notice documents are to be appeal from denial of the second written unnecessary); written order United Coin application clearly timely. v. Meter Co. Seaboard Coastline Rail- Plaintiffs made a application written road, 839, (6th Cir.1983)(with- 705 F.2d 843 2, reinstatement their case on February drawal of written motion to dismiss must after the district court prior denied their writing in during hearing unless made application for reinstatement. We trial); International Business Ma- effect, now must legal consider the any, if Edelstein, Corp. chines v. 526 F.2d second had upon (2d Cir.1975) (oral during motion made action. hearing valid); Alger Hayes, or trial Wisner, Townsend v. 62 Iowa (8th Cir.1972) (oral F.2d motion to (1884), N.W. 304 a case decided before our lack personal jurisdiction dismiss for procedure current rules of civil invalid); pretrial unrecorded conference adopted, at legal issue was the effect of a
Douglas Corp., v. Union Carbide 311 F.2d successively filed motion to strike. The (oral (4th Cir.1962) motion for new court had overruled first motion to in court-reported trial record made after plaintiffs strike and then filed another one valid). verdict rendered is on grounds. the same We determined that The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure overruled, once a motion has been prop- specifically provide for oral motions cer- er recourse for the party who made the 7(b)(1) tain situations. pro- Fed.R.Civ.P. motion is to seek to have the order overrul- part vides as follows: aside, ing it set bring rather than to anoth- An to the court for er identical motion. Id. N.W. at which, shall be unless made reasoning 304. Our was summarized as trial, hearing shall *6 follows: writing.... If a disposed motion which has been Although there is counterpart no to rule up can be called once the unsuccessful 7(b)(1) Procedure, in the Iowa Rules of Civil re-heard, party ruling and as if be no had our cases have in substance reached the made, once, might been it more than and same result without a such rule. The rea- passed the result would be motions requiring writing, sons for a which are to upon might always be as deemed virtual- require opposing par- notice to counsel or they ly pending, at least in the sense record, and given ties to have a are in both to be re-heard at time the Iowa and federal cases. pleasure party at the was who last Therefore, two because these con unsuccessful. met, plaintiffs’ ditions were we hold that 673, N.W. 304. Id. at application oral for reinstatement of the Based, however, on interpretation of case under Iowa R.Civ.P. 215.1 was valid procedure, our rules of civil we this record. ruling under filed Janu application conclude the second written ary denying application for legal significance. without subdivision judgment reinstatement was a final ruling II-A above said the we case. denying of the reinstatement We do it note would have been better judgment. We in division III final state
procedure plaintiffs’ attorney initially for 179(b) timely that no Iowa R.Civ.P. infra motion had to have amade written motion to reinstate. regard filed to this ruling finality B. could affect its or Written successive for appeal reinstatement. We next must consider extend time. supreme must be [Ajppeals the written sec- Accordingly, we conclude after, within, thirty days taken and not and the application for reinstatement ond order, entry or judgment from legal upon no effect ruling thereon decree, for or unless a motion new trial ease, that motion and nor did plaintiffs’ as notwithstanding the judgment verdict plaintiffs’ renew time for ruling or extend provided in R.C.P. a motion appeal. 179‘b’, filed, provided in and is R.C.P. appeal. Defend- III. Timeliness of days entry of thirty within after the then ap- notice of ant contends ruling on such motion.... and, therefore, filed; timely peal was not added.) (Emphasis this jurisdiction appeal. have over no Here, thirty-day period was not agree defendant. We with not appeal and since notice of tolled Because April 17, appeal until was untime filed valid, plaintiffs’ motion reinstatement was refuse, own ly. duty It is our on our the adverse thereon to reconsider motion, appeal authoriz to entertain 179(b) an Iowa motion. constituted R.Civ.P. Robco, ed at 498. by rule. and look the substance of the motion Therefore, jurisdic- court without Peoples Savings not its title. Trust and plaintiffs’ appeal. tion to consider Baird, Bank Accordingly, the decision of the court 1984). 179(b) part: Rule appeals appeal and this is dis- is vacated with or filed within the joined On motion missed. new tri- time allowed al, findings may conclusions be OF OF APPEALS DECISION COURT VACATED; enlarged judgment and the APPEAL or amended DISMISSED. accordingly or modified a dif- decree judgment ferent or decree substituted. except All Justices concur CARTER added.) WOLLE, JJ., (Emphasis who dissent. conjunc must read in This rule CARTER, part). (dissenting in Justice al
tion with rule
which sets
time
Although
majority’s
decision on
for motion for new trial. Such
lowed
may
jurisdictional aspects
appeal
of this
days
“filed
after
motion must be
within
warranted,
my disapproval
I must voice
verdict, report or
is filed.”
decision
re
concerning the
the court’s statements
Iowa R.Civ.P.
un
quirements
obtaining
a continuance
*7
February 2 motion for recon-
Plaintiffs’
der
Rule of
Procedure 215.1.
Iowa
Civil
ruling on
of the
their
sideration
Inc.,
By-Products,
v. National
Anderson
un-
for reinstatement was
(1965),
135 N.W.2d
4.1(22),
timely, see Iowa Code section
be-
unambiguous holding
a clear and
uttered
days
the
that,
cause it
filed fifteen
after
to
the automatic dismis
in order
avoid
215.1,
rule
appeals
sal
“strike list” cases under
disputed ruling. Untimely
of
its
compelled to enter
the court is “not
questions
subject
jurisdiction.
matter
of
at
the dismissal
for continuance
Dahlin,
264, 267
v.
Uchtorff
We
-at
for continuance has filed and mat- hearing. plaintiff
ter set for Neither plaintiffs
nor the lawyer has control availability hearing
over the court’s for a *8 suggest
date. To
there something plaintiff’s more than done, simply
counsel could have incor-
rect. majority suggests position that its
promotes purposes I 215.1.
suggest precisely opposite is true. purpose
Just it is that rule