Lundstrom v. SOUTHERN IDAHO PIPE & STEEL CO.

Idaho Court of Appeals

Lundstrom v. SOUTHERN IDAHO PIPE & STEEL CO.

687 P.2d 579, 107 Idaho 189, 1984 Ida. App. LEXIS 508

CourtIdaho Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 28, 1984

Docket14706

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 687 P.2d 579 (Lundstrom v. SOUTHERN IDAHO PIPE & STEEL CO.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Idaho Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lundstrom v. SOUTHERN IDAHO PIPE & STEEL CO., 687 P.2d 579, 107 Idaho 189, 1984 Ida. App. LEXIS 508 (Idaho Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs counsel filed a notice of withdrawal as attorney in this action for damages for personal injury. Opposing counsel served notice on plaintiff demanding that he employ other counsel or appear in person. The district court then entered an order authorizing withdrawal of plaintiffs counsel, which order failed to advise the plaintiff that his claim was subject to dismissal with prejudice, without further notice, if plaintiff failed within twenty days to have other counsel appear or to appear in person as required by I.R.C.P. 11(b)(3).

Some months later defendant’s counsel moved for dismissal of the action for plaintiff’s failure to comply with the rule. The district court then entered its ex parte order dismissing plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice. Plaintiff moved to set aside the order of dismissal, but his motion was denied. He then appealed from both of the orders.

We hold that the district court erred in refusing to set aside the dismissal because the prior order for withdrawal did not inform plaintiff of the possible consequences for failure, within twenty days, to either appoint new counsel or notify the court he would represent himself. I.R.C.P. 11(b)(3). See Omega Alpha House Corp. v. Molander, 102 Idaho 361, 630 P.2d 153 (1981). The notices sent to plaintiff by defendant’s counsel did not supply the omitted information, even assuming they might have cured the defects in the order. Accordingly, we reverse. Costs to appellant.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs counsel filed a notice of withdrawal as attorney in this action for damages for personal injury. Opposing counsel served notice on plaintiff demanding that he employ other counsel or appear in person. The district court then entered an order authorizing withdrawal of plaintiffs counsel, which order failed to advise the plaintiff that his claim was subject to dismissal with prejudice, without further notice, if plaintiff failed within twenty days to have other counsel appear or to appear in person as required by I.R.C.P. 11(b)(3).

Some months later defendant’s counsel moved for dismissal of the action for plaintiff’s failure to comply with the rule. The district court then entered its ex parte order dismissing plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice. Plaintiff moved to set aside the order of dismissal, but his motion was denied. He then appealed from both of the orders.

We hold that the district court erred in refusing to set aside the dismissal because the prior order for withdrawal did not inform plaintiff of the possible consequences for failure, within twenty days, to either appoint new counsel or notify the court he would represent himself. I.R.C.P. 11(b)(3). See Omega Alpha House Corp. v. Molander, 102 Idaho 361, 630 P.2d 153 (1981). The notices sent to plaintiff by defendant’s counsel did not supply the omitted information, even assuming they might have cured the defects in the order. Accordingly, we reverse. Costs to appellant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

687 P.2d 579, 107 Idaho 189, 1984 Ida. App. LEXIS 508, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lundstrom-v-southern-idaho-pipe-steel-co-idahoctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack