Pusateri v. Rudolf

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Pusateri v. Rudolf

947 P.2d 625, 151 Or. App. 198, 1997 Ore. App. LEXIS 1496

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedNovember 5, 1997

Docket95CV-1891CC; CA A92021

StatusPublished

This text of 947 P.2d 625 (Pusateri v. Rudolf) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pusateri v. Rudolf, 947 P.2d 625, 151 Or. App. 198, 1997 Ore. App. LEXIS 1496 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff appeals a judgment dismissing his complaint for want of prosecution. Plaintiff filed his complaint on May 31, 1995. He thereafter filed a series of documents that purported to establish that defendants had been served with summons and complaint by certified or registered mail and in person. None of the documents was sufficient to establish proper service. Defendants submitted documents indicating their intention to appear, but no defendant appeared in the action.

On November 7, 1995, the court sent plaintiff a notice that the action would be dismissed unless plaintiff filed a proper return of service within 28 days of that date. At plaintiffs request, the court extended that deadline to January 21, 1996. Plaintiff did not file a return within that time, so the court entered a judgment on January 24, 1996, dismissing the action for want of prosecution.

Plaintiff assigns error to entry of the judgment and moves to supplement the record. The motion to supplement the record is allowed. Based on plaintiffs arguments and our review of the record, as supplemented, we conclude that the court did not err in dismissing the action for want of prosecution.

Motion to supplement record allowed; affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff appeals a judgment dismissing his complaint for want of prosecution. Plaintiff filed his complaint on May 31, 1995. He thereafter filed a series of documents that purported to establish that defendants had been served with summons and complaint by certified or registered mail and in person. None of the documents was sufficient to establish proper service. Defendants submitted documents indicating their intention to appear, but no defendant appeared in the action.

On November 7, 1995, the court sent plaintiff a notice that the action would be dismissed unless plaintiff filed a proper return of service within 28 days of that date. At plaintiffs request, the court extended that deadline to January 21, 1996. Plaintiff did not file a return within that time, so the court entered a judgment on January 24, 1996, dismissing the action for want of prosecution.

Plaintiff assigns error to entry of the judgment and moves to supplement the record. The motion to supplement the record is allowed. Based on plaintiffs arguments and our review of the record, as supplemented, we conclude that the court did not err in dismissing the action for want of prosecution.

Motion to supplement record allowed; affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

947 P.2d 625, 151 Or. App. 198, 1997 Ore. App. LEXIS 1496, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pusateri-v-rudolf-orctapp-1997.