Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractbreach of contractplaintiffdefendantattorneynegligencetrialmotioncorporationplaintiff's attorney

plaintiffattorneyappealdocketattachment

Related Cases

Herrmann v. Summer Plaza Corp., 201 Conn. 263, 513 A.2d 1211

Facts

Mary Herrmann initiated a breach of contract and negligence action against Summer Plaza Corporation and Louis Evangelista in 1979. After several years of procedural motions and delays, the case was set for trial on January 31, 1985. On that day, Herrmann's new attorney sought to admit out-of-state counsel pro hac vice, claiming the attorney was unavailable due to another trial. The court denied the request and proceeded with the trial, but Herrmann's attorney refused to participate, leading to the court's dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute.

A review of the record has revealed the following facts. On August 2, 1979, the plaintiff instituted this boundary and surface water cause of action by obtaining a prejudgment remedy attachment.

Issue

Did the trial court err in denying the plaintiff's application for appointment of counsel pro hac vice and in dismissing the action for failure to prosecute with diligence?

The plaintiff's first claim is that the court erred when it denied her application for the appointment pro hac vice of New York counsel.

Rule

The court has the discretion to grant or deny applications for pro hac vice admission based on good cause shown, and it may dismiss cases for failure to prosecute under Practice Book § 251, even on its own motion.

Practice Book § 24 provides in part: 'An attorney who is in good standing at the bar of another state … may, upon special and infrequent occasion and for good cause shown upon written application presented by a member of the bar of this state, be permitted in the discretion of the court to participate to such extent as the court may prescribe in the presentation of a cause or appeal….'

Analysis

The court found that the plaintiff did not demonstrate good cause for the pro hac vice application, as the out-of-state counsel had been available for much of the case's duration. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining an orderly caseflow and noted that the plaintiff's attorney's refusal to proceed with the trial left the court with no choice but to dismiss the case. The court's actions were deemed appropriate to uphold the integrity of the judicial process.

The court, under the circumstances of this case, clearly acted within its discretion to deny the plaintiff's application for admission pro hac vice of New York counsel in order to maintain a legitimate state interest, that of docket control and expeditious caseflow management.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the case and the denial of the pro hac vice application, concluding that there was no error in the trial court's decisions.

We find no error.

Who won?

Defendants, Summer Plaza Corporation and Louis Evangelista, prevailed because the court found that the plaintiff failed to prosecute her case diligently and did not provide sufficient grounds for the admission of out-of-state counsel.

The court had the responsibility, duty and power to see that the case proceeded expeditiously.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Knight v. Aqui, 966 F.Supp.2d 989

Evans v. Jeff D., 475 U.S. 717, 106 S.Ct. 1531, 89 L.Ed.2d 747, 40 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 860, 40 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 36,087, 54 USLW 4359, 4 Fed.R.Serv.3d 321

Security National Bank of Sioux City, Iowa v. Abbott Laboratories, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2013 WL 12140998

Laker Airways Ltd. v. Pan American World Airways, 103 F.R.D. 22, 39 Fed.R.Serv.2d 1043

Malonis v. Harrington, 442 Mass. 692, 816 N.E.2d 115