Superior Court dismissed pro se plaintiff’s complaint after he repeatedly failed to comply with the court’s instructions and had no evidence to present to a jury in support of his claims.

Throughout this litigation, the court explained to the plaintiff the basic rules of evidence and how to present his claims to a jury. Trial was continued three times to give the plaintiff time to secure witnesses and order mediation. Even after the plaintiff identified a key witness for the first time in the pre-trial stipulation, the court denied the defendant’s motion to strike the witness as doing so would result in dismissal of the plaintiff’s case, the most severe sanction. Before the third scheduled trial date, the court learned that the plaintiff’s sole witness was not competent to testify as to the main issue in the case. With no additional evidence to present, the court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, stating: “Through no fault of his own, plaintiff struggled to comply with the orders of the court and the evidentiary rules in this case. It is clear that, despite repeated instructions, he was unable to follow them and failed to present any evidence to meet his burden of proof, or present his case to a jury. To empanel a jury on this record would have been contrary to our rules of evidence and civil procedure, and a waste of already scarce judicial resources.”

^{Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2018}

^{Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2018 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}