- 8 -
Applying these factors we conclude that dismissal of this
case is proper under Rule 123(b). With respect to the first
factor, petitioner is responsible for Attorney Driscoll's actions
under ordinary principles of agency. Link v. Wabash R.R., 370
U.S. 626, 633-634 (1962); Doyle v. Murray, 938 F.2d 33, 35 (4th
Cir. 1991) ("But this must always be done with an eye to the
realities of a client's practical ability to supervise and
control his attorney's litigation conduct."). As indicated,
petitioner filed her petition with this Court through Attorney
Driscoll. We do not know the circumstances surrounding this
attorney-client relationship; nevertheless, petitioner had an
obligation to inquire about the status of her case. Petitioner
is not unfamiliar with the proceedings of this Court, as
evidenced by the previous case litigated.
The remaining factors also warrant dismissal. Respondent
would be prejudiced if we were to continue this case for trial on
another date, particularly in light of the fact that petitioner
has not requested a continuance. In spite of this Court's
warning in its notice setting this case for trial and its
pretrial order, petitioner failed to appear at the hearing and
trial on September 11, 1995. Petitioner also failed to show
cause why judgment should not be entered in accordance with Kline
v. Commissioner, supra. Finally, we believe that dismissal is
warranted because petitioner has, through her own fault, failed
to properly prosecute her case. Accordingly, we discharge the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011