Johnson v. Johnson

• 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.

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.

Share Subscribe