Listen to this article
Where a plaintiff agreed to the dismissal of her complaint after being informed that her attorneys would not be permitted to withdraw, the order of dismissal must be reversed and a remand ordered because the record below contains no evidence that the plaintiff was aware that such a dismissal could be entered with prejudice or that she was aware of the potential implications of such an order.
“In this third-party automobile negligence case, the trial court conducted a hearing in which it orally denied motions to allow plaintiff’s attorneys to withdraw, just prior to trial, despite the fact that plaintiff supported her attorneys’ motions. After the court said it would not allow the attorneys to withdraw, plaintiff said that she wanted to appeal that decision and announced to the court that it could dismiss the case. Without further inquiry or discussion, the court said it was dismissing the case and entered an order of dismissal with prejudice. The record below contains no evidence that plaintiff was aware that such a dismissal could be entered with prejudice nor that she was aware of the potential implications of such an order. Because the court did not give plaintiff a choice to either proceed to trial or accept a dismissal on the terms and conditions established by the trial court, we reverse the order of dismissal and remand for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. …
“… Based on the hearing transcript, plaintiff appears to have made the remark about dismissing the case because she wished to appeal the court’s denial of her attorneys’ motions to withdraw. Clearly, her intention was not to potentially waive her right to appeal, nor was it to have an order entered that could have effectively terminated any further proceedings regarding her third-party automobile negligence case. As plaintiff argues, she did not knowingly and voluntarily agree to a dismissal that would effectively end her right to proceed in court regarding her third-party automobile negligence case.
“Defendant argues that there is no evidence that plaintiff’s statement regarding dismissal of the case was involuntary or coerced, despite plaintiff’s arguments to the contrary.
“We agree that plaintiff was not coerced into making the statement about dismissal and we agree that plaintiff appeared to be volunteering to have her case dismissed. However, as explained above, in order for the court to enter a voluntary dismissal in such a situation, it was required to give plaintiff ‘a choice to either proceed to trial or accept a dismissal on the terms and conditions established by the trial court.’ …
“Plaintiff next argues that the court abused its discretion by denying her attorneys’ motions to withdraw as counsel of record. We disagree. …
“This case had been pending for more than two-and-a-half years by the time counsel for plaintiff filed the first motion to withdraw, and trial was scheduled to begin the following month. While plaintiff argues she was essentially requesting the court to allow her to substitute attorneys, none of the four other attorneys she contacted had filed an appearance by the time of the final pretrial conference. Under these circumstances, we find that the court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiffs’ attorneys’ motions to withdraw because that decision was within the range of reasonable and principled outcomes. …
“We reverse the July 24, 2024 order of dismissal entered by the trial court and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
