Johnson v. Johnson

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Civil Procedure
  • Date Filed: 05-20-2015
  • Case #: A152994
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Nakamoto, J. for the Court; Armstrong, P.J.; and Egan, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

UNDER UTCR 7.020(3), a trial court cannot dismiss an action due to the plaintiff not filing a proposed order for want of prosecution, because no UTCR requires a proposed order be filed.

Martin Johnson filed suit against Matthew Johnson for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. Martin represented himself and filed a motion for default with all proper documentation needed. The trial court "dismissed his action for want of prosecution under" Uniform Trial Court Rule (UTCR) 7.020(3) because Martin did not include a proposed order. The trial court did not inform Martin of the need of a proposed order before dismissing his action. No UTCR states that a proposed order is necessary. The Court held that the trial courts ruling is erroneous. Reversed and remanded.

Advanced Search