Exploring Motions to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute in Arkansas

A Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute in Arkansas is a legal procedure under Rule 41(b) that allows courts to dismiss cases that have shown no activity for the past 12 months. This rule helps trial courts manage their dockets and eliminate stale cases. It is crucial for plaintiffs to be diligent in pursuing their cases to avoid dismissal. The court's decision on such motions is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard, ensuring fairness in the legal process.

Background

“Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) applies to two [types of] dismissals under Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Rule 41(b) was intended to permit trial courts to clean up their dockets and get stale cases dismissed where the plaintiff fails to prosecute, fails to comply with rules, or fails to comply with any order of the court.” (Ballard Group, Inc. v. BP Lubricants USA, Inc. (2014) 436 S.W.3d 445, 458 citing Cory v. Mark Twain Life Ins. Corp. (1985) 286 Ark. 20, 22.)

“The rule is ‘a tool for trial courts to dispose of cases filed and forgotten.’” (Stewart v. Michaelis (2006) 508 S.W.3d 97, 99 quoting Prof'l Adjustment Bureau v. Strong (1982) 275 Ark. 249, 251.) “Apart from the rule-based authority, circuit courts have the inherent power to dismiss mossy cases.” (Stewart, id., citing Florence by Matthews v. Taylor (1996) 325 Ark. 445, 928 S.W.2d 330.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) concerns involuntary dismissal and provides in relevant part:

“In any case in which [...] there has been no action shown on the record for the past 12 months, the court shall cause notice to be mailed to the attorneys of record, and to any party not represented by an attorney, that the case will be dismissed for want of prosecution unless on a stated day application is made, upon a showing of good cause, to continue the case on the court’s docket.”

Further...

“A dismissal under this subdivision is without prejudice to a future action by the plaintiff unless the action has been previously dismissed, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, in which event such dismissal operates as an adjudication on the merits.”

(See, e.g., Stewart v. Michaelis (2006) 508 S.W.3d 97, 99 quoting Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

Courts of appeal apply an abuse of discretion standard when reviewing lower court decisions on motions to dismiss for failure to prosecute. (See, e.g. Stewart v. Michaelis (2016) 508 S.W.3d 97, 99 [noting, “this appeal deals specifically with a Rule 41(b) dismissal, and they are typically reviewed under an abuse-of-discretion standard; citing Jonesboro Healthcare Ctr., LLC v. Eaton–Moery Envtl. Servs., Inc., 2011 Ark. 501, at 3.)

The Court’s Decision

“Some state and federal courts use multi-factor tests to decide whether a dismissal for failing to prosecute a case was an abuse of a trial court's discretion, but no Arkansas appellate court has expressly done so thus far.” [...] “That streak won't end today, though we acknowledge [appellant]'s invitation to apply such a test.” (Stewart v. Michaelis (2016) 508 S.W.3d 97, 100 [internal citations omitted].)

“17 Am. Juris. 88, [states] as follows: ‘As a general rule, an action may be dismissed or a non-suit granted because of the plaintiff's failure to prosecute it diligently. The power of the courts to dismiss a case because of failure to prosecute with due diligence is said to be inherent and independent of any statute or rule of court.’” (Chandler v. Furlow (1946) 209 Ark. 852, 855 citing 17 Am. Juris. 88.)