- 12 -
For the following reasons, we think the applicable standard
is clearly satisfied in this case.
First, petitioner failed to appear at trial, either in
person or by counsel, despite the warning set forth in the
Court's Notice setting this case for trial. Rather, a "friend"
of petitioner came forward and "served" on the Court petitioner's
Motion to Dismiss.
Second, petitioner failed to cooperate in preparing this
case for trial, despite the warning set forth in the Court's
Notice setting this case for trial.
Third, petitioner failed to comply with the Court's Order
granting respondent's Motion to Compel Production of Documents,
despite the warning set forth in such order.
Fourth, petitioner failed to comply with the Court's
Standing Pre-trial Order, despite the admonitions therein and
despite the reminder concerning the applicability of such order
that was set forth in the Court's Order granting respondent's
aforementioned motion to compel production.
Fifth, petitioner's Motion to Dismiss itself demonstrates
petitioner's lack of interest in pursuing whatever justiciable
issues may exist in this case.
In view of the foregoing, we conclude that dismissal is
warranted as a sanction. Accordingly, we will grant respondent's
Motion To Dismiss For Failure To Properly Prosecute.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011