Schiffrin v. Baron
Opinion of the Court
This case presents the issue of whether a District Court Judge exceeded her authority and acted in an arbitrary, capricious or whimsical way in dismissing an action under Mass. R. Civ. P., Rule 41(b) (2). We hold that she did not so act and we dismiss the plaintiff s report, allowing the dismissal of the complaint in District Court to stand.
Plaintiff brought this action on June 24,1985, alleging a dispute over a real estate transaction occurring in 1983. According to the docket, a variety of pleading and discovery activities took place through July 21,1986; thereafter all activity, including discovery ceased. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 41 on October 5, 1992, some six years and two months later. On November 23,1992 the judge allowed the motion to dismiss, finding that inaction for six years was unreasonable, in that no reason was offered for failure to prosecute discovery, and finding further that defendants were prejudiced as their business was closed.
The power to invoke the sanction of dismissal for want of prosecution is necessary in order to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases, and the view taken by the trial judge should be upheld except when it is the result of arbitrary determination, capricious disposition or whimsical thinking — an idiosyncratic choice, Bucchiere v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co., 396 Mass. 639, 641 (1986). The judge
The report must be dismissed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.