This case started as an easy private harm automotive accident lawsuit. Plaintiffs have been allegedly rear-ended by an 18-wheeler operated on behalf of Midstream Transportation Firm. However issues took a tragic flip when, only some months after the grievance was filed, the plaintiffs’ lawyer, Scott Ogle, handed away in December 2023. Simply two months later, the defendants requested for a continuance due to Ogle’s dying — that means the protection was nicely conscious of his passing — which the trial court docket granted.
However on the identical time, the defendants filed a no-evidence movement for abstract judgment, itemizing 63 separate factors the place they claimed the plaintiffs lacked proof. And as a substitute of guaranteeing the plaintiffs have been correctly notified — or that somebody was truly representing them — the movement and listening to discover have been served on Ogle’s workplace, although the protection knew he had died.
Certainly, within the protection’s abstract judgment movement, they acknowledge “I’ve tried to conduct a convention with Plaintiffs’ counsel, however I’ve been knowledgeable that he’s deceased. Once I place calls to his workplace, there isn’t a reply and the voice mail is full. When I’ve written to his workplace by e-mail, I get no response. As greatest I do know, Plaintiffs should not represented by counsel right now.” But discover of the listening to on the abstract judgment movement was solely despatched to the lifeless lawyer.
Two days earlier than the abstract judgment movement listening to, a brand new lawyer entered an look for the plaintiffs, together with a movement for continuance of the abstract judgment listening to. Defendants opposed the movement, and the listening to went ahead. Unsurprisingly, for the reason that dying of Ogle and hiring of a brand new lawyer left no alternative for discovery, abstract judgment was granted.
On attraction, the court docket principally regarded on the file, sighed closely, and stated: Completely not. In a crisp little bit of judicial side-eye, Decide Katy Boatman wrote, “The Defendants could very nicely present on remand that they’re entitled to a no-evidence movement for abstract judgment. However they aren’t entitled to at least one when the movement and listening to discover have been each knowingly served on a lifeless lawyer, leaving the plaintiffs with out satisfactory time for discovery.”
The court docket went on to admonish the defendants for failing to take even minimal steps: like reaching out to the plaintiffs straight, recognizing them as professional se after their lawyer’s dying, or asking the court docket to intervene. As an alternative, they barreled forward like all the things was nice, which it very a lot was not.
It’s a reminder the tragedy shouldn’t be weaponized, not even in a adversarial course of like litigation.
Learn the appellate court docket’s resolution beneath.
Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Regulation, host of The Jabot podcast, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. AtL tipsters are one of the best, so please join together with her. Be happy to e-mail her with any ideas, questions, or feedback and observe her on Twitter @Kathryn1 or Mastodon @[email protected].
