CIVIL PROCEDURE: Dismissal under CR 41.02 and Ward v. Housman factors: Mullins v. Redford Township (COA 9/25/2009)

Mullins v. Redford Township
2008-CA-001818 9/25/09 2009 WL 3048907

Opinion by Senior Judge Lambert; Judges Clayton and Thompson concurred.

The Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings an order of the circuit court dismissing appellant’s claims, under various theories of recovery, against two Michigan townships and police officers. Appellant claimed that police officers traveled to his home in Kentucky, arrested him, and forcibly transported him to Michigan where he was incarcerated for two weeks. The Court held that the dismissal under CR 41.02 for appellant’s failure to comply with a scheduling order was improper without consideration of the factors enumerated in Ward v. Housman, 809 S.W.2d 717 (Ky. App. 1991), and findings that dismissal was warranted in light of those factors The Court rejected appellees’ argument that consideration of the factors could be presumed.

Please note: I reserve the right to delete comments that are inappropriate, offensive or off-topic.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.