Martell v. Jen Co.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Martell v. Jen Co.

643 A.2d 904, 1994 Me. LEXIS 116

CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine

DecidedJune 29, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 643 A.2d 904 (Martell v. Jen Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Martell v. Jen Co., 643 A.2d 904, 1994 Me. LEXIS 116 (Me. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

WATHEN, Chief Justice.

Plaintiffs Gregory and Joseph Mar-tell appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court (Cumberland County, Alexander, J.) dismissing their complaint for want of prosecution. Suit was commenced in 1989. When the matter came on for trial in July of 1991, plaintiffs’ counsel suggested that one of the defendants had filed a bankruptcy petition, and informally requested that the court retain the case on the docket. Plaintiffs then took no further action until November of 1993, when finally they moved to retain the case on the docket. We find no abuse of discretion in the Superior Court’s decision to dismiss. Orlandella v. O’Brien, 637 A.2d 105, 106 (Me.1994). Because the court properly dismissed the case with prejudice for non-prosecution in accord with M.R.Civ.P. 41(b), we need not consider plaintiffs’ contention that the court earlier erred in dismissing one of the counts of the complaint for failure to state a claim. An order clearing the docket of a stale claim is subject to review, but it does not serve as a vehicle for appealing prior interlocutory rulings. Cf. Effect of nonsuit, dismissal, or discontinuance of action on ‘previous orders, 11 A.L.R.2d 1407 sec. 3 (dismissal generally leaves the situation as if the suit had never been filed and encompasses all prior rulings and orders in the case).

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed.

All concurring.

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

WATHEN, Chief Justice.

Plaintiffs Gregory and Joseph Mar-tell appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court (Cumberland County, Alexander, J.) dismissing their complaint for want of prosecution. Suit was commenced in 1989. When the matter came on for trial in July of 1991, plaintiffs’ counsel suggested that one of the defendants had filed a bankruptcy petition, and informally requested that the court retain the case on the docket. Plaintiffs then took no further action until November of 1993, when finally they moved to retain the case on the docket. We find no abuse of discretion in the Superior Court’s decision to dismiss. Orlandella v. O’Brien, 637 A.2d 105, 106 (Me.1994). Because the court properly dismissed the case with prejudice for non-prosecution in accord with M.R.Civ.P. 41(b), we need not consider plaintiffs’ contention that the court earlier erred in dismissing one of the counts of the complaint for failure to state a claim. An order clearing the docket of a stale claim is subject to review, but it does not serve as a vehicle for appealing prior interlocutory rulings. Cf. Effect of nonsuit, dismissal, or discontinuance of action on ‘previous orders, 11 A.L.R.2d 1407 sec. 3 (dismissal generally leaves the situation as if the suit had never been filed and encompasses all prior rulings and orders in the case).

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed.

All concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

643 A.2d 904, 1994 Me. LEXIS 116, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martell-v-jen-co-me-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack