Motion to Dismiss For Failure to Prosecute in New Hampshire

What Is a Motion to Dismiss For Failure to Prosecute?

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute

“The authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has generally been considered an `inherent power,' governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases." (See Garabedian v. William Company (1965) 106 N.H. 156, 158.)

“It is a housekeeping rule designed to clear the docket of cases that parties have failed to prosecute.” (See Levesque v. Levesque (1993) 137 N.H. 638, 641.)

Procedural Steps Involved in Filing a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute

Motions to dismiss are governed under Rule 1.8 of the New Hampshire Circuit Court Rules.

“Any request for action by the Court shall be by motion. All motions, other than those made during trial or hearing, shall be made in writing unless otherwise provided by these rules. They shall state with particularity the grounds upon which they are made and shall set forth the relief or order sought.” (See N.H. R. Cir. Ct. Dist. Div. 1.8(A).)

“Upon request of a party, hearings on motions to dismiss shall be scheduled as soon as practicable, but no later than 30 days prior to the date set for trial on the merits, unless the court shall otherwise order in the exercise of discretion. All parties shall be prepared, at any such hearing, to present all necessary arguments.” (See N.H. R. Cir. Ct. Dist. Div. 1.8(G).)

Standard of Review in Deciding a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute

“In ruling on a motion to dismiss, it is clearly within the province of the trial court to make legal rulings adverse to the complainant, and to weigh all factual assertions that are relevant to the determination of such rulings.” (See Chasan v. Village District of Eastman (1986) 128 N.H. 807, 814.)

“In considering a motion to dismiss, our standard of review is whether the allegations in the plaintiff's pleadings are reasonably susceptible of a construction that would permit recovery. We assume the plaintiff's pleadings to be true and construe all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom most favorably to [it]. We need not assume the truth of statements in the plaintiff's complaint, however, which are merely conclusions of law.” (See Karch v. Baybank FSB (2002) 147 N.H. 525, 529.)

“We apply our traditional standard of review for motions to dismiss to the legal issues presented. Specifically, we review issues of law de novo.” (See Avery v. Comm'r, N.H. Dep't of Corr. (2020) 173 N.H. 726, 730.)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute

It is well settled that pursuant to RSA 508:10, “if judgment is rendered against the plaintiff in an action brought within the time limited therefor, or upon a writ of error thereon, and the right of action is not barred by the judgment, a new action may be brought thereon in one year after the judgment.” (See N.H. Rev. Stat. § 508:10; Doggett v. Town of North Hampton (1994) 138 N.H. 744, 746.)

As such, it is also well settled that “a dismissal for failure to prosecute is not an adjudication on the merits and not a bar to a second suit…” (See Carveth v. Latham (1970) 110 N.H. 232, 234; Lesser v. Migden (1964) 328 F.2d 47, 50; Barton v. Barton (1984) 125 N.H. 433, 434.)

Dockets for Motion to Dismiss For Failure to Prosecute in New Hampshire

Sort By

U.S. Bank National Association, not in its individual capacity but solely as Own v Heirs, Devisees, and Legal Representatives of Paulette Z. Coe a/k/a Paulette M., et al

Filed

May 07, 2024

Status

Active

Court

Rockingham County

County

Rockingham County, NH

Case #