Schwartz v. Palachuk

2 Citing cases

  1. Jenco v. the United Fire Group

    666 N.W.2d 763 (S.D. 2003)   Cited 5 times
    Noting the notions of fundamental fairness prevent raising the statute of limitations over other considerations in determining whether a case should be dismissed under SDCL 15-6-41(b) or SDCL 15-11-11

    Those who totally ignore them . . . should not be heard to complain that a sanction was too severe." Storm v. Durr, 2003 SD 6, ¶ 17, 657 N.W.2d 34, 38 (quoting Schwartz v. Palachuk , 1999 SD 100, ¶ 23, 597 N.W.2d 442, 447). Jenco was expressly ordered to obtain new counsel and chose to disregard that order for thirty months. Plaintiff cannot be heard to complain now that the sanction was too harsh when compliance with the court's order was completely within Jenco's control. Jenco has not shown any reason for its failure to obtain substitute counsel nor has it shown that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing with prejudice under SDCL 15-6-41(b) for failure to obey a court order.

  2. Storm v. Durr

    2003 S.D. 6 (S.D. 2003)   Cited 6 times
    In Storm, the plaintiffs were warned that failure to abide by the order would result in dismissal but chose to disregard the order.

    Those who totally ignore them . . . should not be heard to complain that a sanction was too severe." Schwartz v. Palachuk, 1999 SD 100, ¶ 23, 597 N.W.2d 442, 447. [¶ 18.] To date, Storm has failed to show an absence of good cause to dismiss the action.