“Under Alaska Civil Rule 41(b), a court may also dismiss a case, uponthe motion of a party, for failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to complywith these rules or any order of court.” (See McDermott v. State, Courtof Appeals No. A-12446, at *4 (Alaska Ct. App. Aug. 15, 2018); Alaska R. Civ.P. 41(b).)
Purpose and Significance of a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute
“Under Rule 41(e), cases operating by standard civil procedures may bedismissed for want of prosecution.” (See Airoulofski v. State (1996) 922P.2d 889, 892.)
“The purpose of Rule 41(e) is to encourage plaintiffs to keep theircases moving at a reasonable speed and to allow the court to clear thecalendar of cases that are not being prosecuted diligently.”(See ZELLER v. POOR (1978) 577 P.2d 695, 697.)
“Rule 41(b) provides that unless the court in its order for dismissalotherwise provides, dismissals for failure to prosecute, to comply with thecivil rules, or to comply with any order of court operate as an adjudicationon the merits. The purpose of this provision is to establish a strong sanctionto enforce compliance with proper procedure.” (See Denardo v. Barrans(2002) 59 P.3d 266, 269.)
“Rule 41(e) only allows dismissal if no proceeding has been taken in thecase for a period of more than one year. This court has held that where apreviously inactive party mails a request for a trial date and pre-trialconference to the court before its opponent files a motion to dismiss underRule 41(e), the request constituted a proceeding so that dismissal wasimproper.” (See Airoulofski v. State (1996) 922 P.2d 889, 893; Zeller v.Poor (1978) 577 P.2d 695, 697; Cf. Power Constructors, Inc. v. Acres American(1991) 811 P.2d 1052, 1054.)
“In general, a court will not dismiss a case under 41(e) when thereis a reasonable excuse for the lack of prosecution.”(See Brown v. State (1974) 526 P.2d 1365; Power Constructors v. Acres American(1991) 811 P.2d 1052, 1054.)
Rules for Filing a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute
Rule 41 of the Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure governs motions to dismiss forfailure to prosecute.
“The court on its own motion or on motion of a party to the actionmay dismiss a case for want of prosecution if:
- the case has been pending for more than one year without any proceedingshaving been taken, or
- the case has been pending for more than one year, and no trial or mandatorypretrial scheduling conference has been scheduled or held.”
(See Alaska R. Civ. P. 41(e).)
Discretion of the Court in Deciding a Motion to Dismiss for Failure toProsecute
“[W]e review the superior court's decision to dismiss for failure toprosecute for abuse of discretion.”(See West v. Municipality of Anchorage (2007) 174 P.3d 224, 227; Géczyv. State, Dep't of Natural Res. (1996) 924 P.2d 103, 104.)
“Under the abuse of discretion standard, the trial court's decision willonly be overturned if this court has a definite and firm conviction that thejudge made a mistake.” (See Bachmeier v. State, Dep't of Corr., No.S-17824, at *4 (Alaska May 4, 2022).)
"[W]e review the trial court's factual findings for clear error and itslegal determinations de novo.” (See id.)
“The relevant inquiry on the court's part in cases of this nature isto determine whether any proceedings have been taken within the one yearperiod, and if no proceedings have been taken for more than one year todetermine whether or not good cause has been shown why the action should notbe dismissed.”(See Willis v. Wetco, Inc. (1993) 853 P.2d 533, 536.)
Notable Decisions Discussing a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute
“A showing of ‘good cause’ has been described as the production of a reasonable excuse for the lack of prosecution.” (See Willis v. Wetco, Inc. (1993) 853 P.2d 533, 535; Power Constructors (1991) 811 P.2d 1052, 1054; Brown v. State (1974) 526 P.2d 1365.)
“The superior court should not dismiss a case under Civil Rule 41(e) when there is a reasonable excuse for the lack of prosecution. But a dilatory party must explain why there was good cause for its failure to prosecute; conclusory statements do not suffice.” (See Highlight Canyon, LLC v. Cioffoletti (2023) 533 P.3d 929, 934; Brown v. State (1974) 526 P.2d 1365; Power Constructors v. Acres American (1991) 811 P.2d 1052 [rejecting good cause argument because appellant did not explain why it needed sixteen months to prepare case for litigation or why it did not take any action of record during this period]; Willis v. Wetco, Inc. (1993) 853 P.2d 533, 535-36 [rejecting good cause argument because appellant did not explain[ ] what aspect of his damages were continuing to accumulate, or why the time [was] any more ‘ripe’ for trial now than earlier ... [and] there [was] no support for this excuse].)
“In exercising this discretion, courts should consider whether the moving party had good reason for failing to litigate effectively before dismissal.” (See Dickerson v. Goodman (2007) 161 P.3d 1205, 1207.)
