CHUUK STATE SUPREME COURT
TRIAL DIVISION
Cite as Sally v. Andon, 9 FSM Intrm. 55 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1999)

[9 FSM Intrm. 55]

MORI SALLY et al.,
Plaintiffs,

vs.

NEFTY ANDON,
Defendant.

CSSC CIVIL ACTION NO. 03-99

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

Soukichi Fritz
Chief Justice

Hearing: February 16, 1999
Decided: February 24, 1999

* * * *

HEADNOTES

Civil Procedure - Dismissal
Cases may be dismissed for the plaintiff's failure to prosecute or to comply with the rules or any order of court. Sally v. Andon, 9 FSM Intrm. 55, 56 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1999).

Civil Procedure - Dismissal
Where grounds exist, an action is subject to dismissal, as a general rule, on the court's own motion and the trial court has power to dismiss an action, sua sponte, for want of prosecution. Sally v. Andon, 9 FSM Intrm. 55, 56 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1999).

[9 FSM Intrm. 56]

Civil Procedure - Dismissal
Courts in the exercise of their inherent powers may dismiss an action in which a plaintiff refuses to comply with an order of the court or the setting of a case for trial. In dismissing an action the court may consider the importance of a judge maintaining control of his calendar and that a trial, once set, should be continued only for the most compelling reasons . Sally v. Andon, 9 FSM Intrm. 55, 56 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1999).

Civil Procedure - Dismissal
When all parties have been duly served notice of a scheduled hearing and none appear, the case may be dismissed with prejudice because the plaintiff failed to appear and prosecute his case and is deemed to have abandoned his claim. Sally v. Andon, 9 FSM Intrm. 55, 56 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1999).

* * * *

COURT'S OPINION

SOUKICHI FRITZ, Chief Justice:

This case comes before the Court after notice to all parties, duly served, that a hearing was scheduled to be held in the case on the 16th Day of February, 1999, at the hour of 9:00 o'clock a.m., at the Chuuk State Courthouse.

At the appointed time and place scheduled for the hearing, neither of the parties appeared in their own proper person or by counsel. In this regard, Rule 41(b), CSSC Rules of Civil Procedure, provides authority for dismissal of the case "[f]or failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with these rules or any order of court …." This is the prevailing rule in all jurisdictions and as stated in 24 Am. Jur. 2d Dismissal § 61 (1983), where grounds exist, "an action is subject to dismissal, as a general rule, on the court's own motion" and "the trial court has power to dismiss an action, sua sponte, for want of prosecution." "The decisions uniformly hold that courts in the exercise of their inherent powers may dismiss an action in which a plaintiff refuses to comply with an order of the court or the setting of a case for trial." Sandee Mfg. Co. v. Rohm & Haas Co., 298 F.2d 41, 42 (7th Cir. 1962) (emphasis added).

The Sandee case further states that: "In dismissing the action the District Court considered the importance of a judge maintaining control of his calendar; that a trial, once set, should be continued only for the most compelling reasons …" Id. at 43.

Therefore, the complaint is due to be dismissed with prejudice for the reason that the Plaintiff failed to appear and prosecute his case and is deemed to have abandoned his claim, and it is so ordered.