Motion to Dismiss For Failure to Prosecute in Montana

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute

“Failure to prosecute simply means that a plaintiff has failed to exercise due diligence in bringing his case to conclusion.” (See Martin v. Board of Labor Appeals (1987) 227 Mont. 145, 148; Shackleton v. Neil (1983) 207 Mont. 96, 672 P.2d 1112, 40 St.Rep. 1920.)

“The mere lapse of time does not justify dismissal if the plaintiff has not been lacking in diligence, since expedition for its own sake is not the goal.” (See id; Alexander v. Pacific Maritime Assoc. (1970) 434 F.2d 281.)

“Upon the defendant's motion, M. R. Civ. P. 41(b) allows a district court to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute.” (See Semenza v. Larson (2023) MT 32, 5.)

"In deciding whether a district court has abused its discretion in dismissing an action for failure to prosecute, we consider four factors:

1. the plaintiff's diligence in prosecuting the claims;
2. the prejudice caused to the defense by the plaintiff's delay;
3. the availability of alternate sanctions; and
4. whether the plaintiff was warned that the case was in danger of dismissal."

(See id; ECI Credit, LLC v. Diamond S Inc. (2018) 392 Mont. 178.)

Rules for a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute

Rule 41 of the Montana Rules of Civil Procedure governs dismissal of actions.

“If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it. Unless the dismissal order states otherwise, a dismissal under this subdivision (b) and any dismissal not under this rule -- except one for lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, or failure to join a party under Rule 19 -- operates as an adjudication on the merits.” (See M.R. Civ. P. 41(b).)

Discretion of the Court in Deciding a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute

“There is inherent power in a district court, in the exercise of sound discretion, to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute.” (See Martin v. Board of Labor Appeals (1987) 227 Mont. 145, 148; Jangula v. United States Rubber Co. (1967), 149 Mont. 241, 425 P.2d 319.)

“Rule 41(b), M.R.Civ.P. provides that where a plaintiff failed to exercise due diligence in bringing her case to court, dismissal for failure to prosecute is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and will not he overturned absent a showing of abuse of discretion.” (See Marriage of Horton (1989) 237 Mont. 99, 102-03; Shackleton v. Neil (1983), 207 Mont. 96, 672 P.2d 1112; Calaway v. Jones (1978), 177 Mont. 516, 582 P.2d 756.)

“The rationale behind trial court discretion under Rule 41(b), M.R.Civ.P., is that since no statute of limitations pertains to the matter, trial court discretion is the only vehicle available for dismissal.” (See id.)

“However, the trial court's discretion is not without bounds. [I]t must be borne in mind that courts exist primarily to afford a forum to settle litigable matters between disputing parties." (See Martin v. Board of Labor Appeals (1987) 227 Mont. 145, 148; Brymerski v. City of Great Falls (1981), 195 Mont. 428, 431-432, 636 P.2d 846, 848.)

“Further, the policy favoring the resolution of a case on its merits is more compelling than the underlying policy of Rule 41(b) of preventing unreasonable delays.” (See id.)

“Courts recognize the need to balance judicial efficiency against a plaintiff's right to meaningful access to the judicial system.” (See Martin v. Board of Labor Appeals (1987) 227 Mont. 145, 148.)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute

It is well settled that “the plaintiff ‘bears the burden’ of timely effecting proper service of process. A plaintiff must effect proper service within three years of the date of filing of the complaint. [U]pon motion or on its own initiative, the court must dismiss an action without prejudice if the plaintiff fails to bring about proper service within the three year deadline. On motion, the court may dismiss an action with prejudice if the plaintiff fails to prosecute the action, fails to comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure, or disobeys an order of the court.” (See Nolan v. Riverstone Health Care (2017) 387 Mont. 97, 100; M. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(1); M. R. Civ. P. 4(t)(1); M. R. Civ. P. 4(t)(1); M. R. Civ. P. 41(b).)

It is also well settled that “because dismissal for failure to prosecute is a harsh remedy, the court does not have unlimited discretion to grant an involuntary dismissal.” (See DeJana v. Oleson (1994) 264 Mont. 62, 64; Becky v. Norwest Bank (1990) 245 Mont. 1.)