Automobile Liability

On October 7, 2024, the appellant filed a complaint against appellee seeking damages from a September 19, 2024, motor vehicle collision. On November 15, 2024, the parties appeared for a pre-trial hearing and jointly requested a continuance for a referral to attend mediation at a later date. Mediation was held on January 24, 2025, and both parties attended by phone. This is evidenced by the mediator, DLC, signing on behalf of both parties at the bottom of the report acknowledging that they appeared telephonically.

Nonetheless, while completing the mediation outcome report, DLC checked the boxes next to “Participation Declined by” for both “Plaintiff” and “Defendant” under the section titled “Mediation Cancelled.” DLC did not complete the section titled “Mediation Held,” nor did DLC fill out the section titled “No Mediation Held.”

On February 3, 2025, relying on this report, the magistrate issued a decision dismissing the case, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute. That same day, the trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision and journalized a judgment entry. The court failed to send notice to the appellant prior to entering its dismissal of the case, with prejudice.

The appellant appealed the judgment as plain error, stating the dismissal was based on a mediator’s incorrect report that should not have been considered by the court. Further, the appellant argued the trial court erred in dismissing the case for failure to prosecute without providing notice to the plaintiff or counsel.

The Court of Appeals held that the trial court failed to acknowledge the signatures on the mediation report that evidenced the parties did, in fact, appear for mediation. Consequently, the trial court committed plain error in dismissing this case for failure to prosecute, with prejudice, based on the incorrect notion that the parties did not attend mediation.

Additionally, the lack of notice, combined with the expedited nature of the trial court’s adoption of the magistrate’s decision, deprived the appellant of the opportunity to object, correct the record or otherwise address the erroneous information contained in DLC’s report. Thus, the immediate dismissal of this case, with prejudice, based on the misinterpretation of the DLC’s report, and the failure of the trial court to provide notice of its decision to appellant, constitutes plain error.