Quantcast

LEGAL NEWSLINE

Saturday, November 16, 2024

Judge was hasty to toss case because plaintiffs counsel couldn't attend hearing, Ala. SC rules

Attorneys & Judges
Justicebolinfromcourtwebsite300x400

Alabama Supreme Court Justice Michael F. Bolin

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (Legal Newsline) – An Alabama judge fed up with delays in an assault lawsuit was wrong to throw it out of court when plaintiffs attorneys asked for a continuance, the Alabama Supreme Court has ruled.

Justice Michael Bolin wrote the Oct. 30 majority opinion in a lawsuit against the Autaga County Board of Education and several individuals. The Autaga County judge who dismissed the case will now have to proceed with deciding a motion to dismiss on its merits.

“(T)he circuit court exceeded its discretion in dismissing S.C. and K.C.’s claims when there was no clear record of delay or contumacious conduct by the plaintiffs,” Bolin wrote.

The lawsuit alleges the child of S.C. and K.C. was the victim of assault at school. The Autaga Board of Education and its employees who were sued claimed they were entitled to sovereign immunity from the case.

When the trial judge scheduled a Nov. 21, 2019, hearing on their motion to dismiss, counsel for the individual defendants asked for a continuance because they would be busy that week with depositions in another case.

Other defendants, seemingly the child’s alleged attacker and his or her parents, then filed a motion to dismiss of their own. The lawyers for the individual school defendants again asked for a continuance from a Dec. 12 hearing because they would be busy with another case.

That request was granted, setting a new hearing date of Dec. 20. Plaintiffs counsel this time asked for a continuance because of another case but the trial judge did not rule on it.

When they did not show for the Dec. 20 hearing, the trial judge entered an order granting the motions to dismiss with prejudice.

“S.C. and K.C. sought their first continuance following the circuit court's order rescheduling the hearing and after the parties had found a convenient date in accordance with motion-docket dates provided by court personnel. We also note that the time for S.C. and K.C. to file their motion to continue in response to the circuit court's rescheduled hearing date was only 10 days,” Bolin wrote.

ORGANIZATIONS IN THIS STORY

More News