Opinion
No. 98A-07-004 WCC
Submitted: November 19, 1999.
Decided: March 31, 2000.
Elwyn Evans, Jr., Esquire, 1210 N. King Street, P.O. Box 1037 Wilmington, DE. 19899.
James R. Leonard, Esquire, 840 N. Union Street, P.O. Box 514 Wilmington, DE. 19899.
Dear Counsel:
The Court has before it a Motion for Reargument of its decision in this matter issued on November 4, 1999. The basic contention of the Motion is that this Court failed to consider the factors set forth in United States v. USX Corporation in deciding the appropriateness of the lower court's action. While this Court will acknowledge that a detailed analysis by the trial court of these factors would have assisted in creating an appropriate record to justify a dismissal, it does not find that it is mandated by either case law or statute.
3d Cir., 68 E.3d 811 (1995).
This Court's review was limited to a determination of whether the trial court's discretion was inappropriately exercised. The trial court's record. while admittedly not as nicely packaged as appellant would like under USX Corporation, was clearly sufficient to justify the dismissal in the Court of Common Pleas. It is critical to recognize that the lower court has the discretion to effectively manage its overwhelming caseload when litigants refuse to obey its orders without justification.
Regardless of how the appellant attempts to characterize the Court's action in this matter, it does not change the fact that the appellant was afforded an opportunity to litigate her claim at the Justice of the Peace level and lost. Then, she appealed to the Court of Common Pleas, and on the day of her trial, all essential personnel and parties were present in the courtroom at the designated time except the appellant. No one knew of her whereabouts, and there appeared to be no effort on her part to contact either counsel or the Court about her tardiness. When given an opportunity to explain her actions, the best explanation provided was that she "lost track of the time" due to a plumbing emergency. This cavalier approach to her obligation to the Court and her counsel is unacceptable, and no court should be fearful in enforcing its rules when confronted with these facts. The appellant has only herself to blame for her present predicament. She had her day in court when the matter was litigated at the Justice of the Peace. She just lost her right to have it twice, The Motion for Reargument is DENIED.
Sincerely yours, __________________________________ Judge William C. Carpenter, Jr.
WCCjr:twp cc: Prothonotary