Opinion
TC-MD 110495N
12-16-2011
LARRY D. BRAZZLE and REBECCA A. BRAZZLE, Plaintiffs v. MULTNOMAH COUNTY ASSESSOR, Defendant.
DECISION OF DISMISSAL
ALLISON R. BOOMER MAGISTRATE PRO TEMPORE .
This matter is before the court on its own motion to dismiss this case for lack of prosecution.
On October 13, 2011, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss (Motion), requesting that Plaintiffs' appeal be dismissed because “Plaintiff[s] ha[ve] not alleged facts showing that [P]laintiff[s are] 'aggrieved' within the meaning of ORS 305.275 because [P]laintiff[s] ha[ve] not requested a reduction in real market value which will result in any reduction in tax payable by [P]laintiff[s] for the year in question.” (Def's Mot at 1.)
A case management conference was scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on November 22, 2011, to discuss Defendant's Motion and determine whether Plaintiffs' appeal includes the 2010-11 exception value. Plaintiffs failed to appear for that proceeding. Notice of the November 22, 2011, conference was sent to Plaintiffs on November 2, 2011, to 6430 NE 41st Ave, Portland OR 97211, which is the address that Plaintiffs provided to the court. (Ptfs' Compl at 1.) The notice was not returned as undeliverable. The notice advised that if Plaintiffs did not appear, the court might dismiss the appeal .
During the initial case management conference on July 18, 2011, Plaintiff Larry Brazzle discussed the “small remodel” that was “completed about one year ago, ” the value of which was added to the 2010-11 tax roll as exception value of $98, 980. It is not clear if Plaintiffs request a reduction in the 2010-11 exception value.
On November 23, 2011, the court issued an Order stating that, within 14 days of the date of the Order, Plaintiffs must file a written response to Defendant's Motion. (Order at 4.) The Order warned that Plaintiffs' failure to file a written response “shall result in dismissal of the appeal.” (Id.) As of the date of this Decision, Plaintiffs have not filed a written response to Defendant's Motion as required by the court's Order of November 23, 2011. Under such circumstances, the court finds the appeal must be dismissed for lack of prosecution. The trial set for January 23, 2012, in this matter is hereby canceled. Now, therefore, IT IS THE DECISION OF THIS COURT that Plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed and trial set for January 23, 2012, in this matter in canceled.