Dismissal of the case without prejudice; Due process; Distinguishing Vincencio v Jaime Ramirez, MD, PC; Sanction of dismissal without prejudice

The court held that plaintiffs “provided no meaningful legal support for their due-process argument.” Also, under the “circumstances, the trial court had no options other than adjourning the trial (while a jury panel was waiting outside the courtroom) or dismissing the case without prejudice, which effectively postponed the trial until after plaintiffs refiled their complaint.” The court held that there was no abuse of discretion. Plaintiffs challenged “the trial court’s dismissal of this case without prejudice on two grounds. First, they insist [its] changes of the trial date amounted to a violation of due process. Second, they claim the trial court abused its discretion by failing to impose a sanction less severe than dismissal without prejudice.” While they alleged a due process violation “in the scheduling of their trial, they neither advanced that argument in the trial court nor explained the nature of that claim in their briefs on appeal.” Thus, their effort to present such a claim fell “prey to the raise-or-waive rule because they failed to assert their claim in the trial court, . . . as well as abandonment principles because they failed to explain their position on appeal.” Plaintiffs relied on Vincencio “for the principle that ‘due process requires that the notice given be reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.’ But here, the trial court scheduled the [3/4/24] trial date months ahead of time, and then ultimately adhered to that trial date by adjusting its schedule by clearing other matters to make room for the trial in this case. To be sure, [it] at first tried to move the trial, but it relented almost immediately after learning that adjourning the trial for one week was unworkable for the parties and their attorneys..” Plaintiffs also complained that it “failed to consider lesser sanctions before dismissing the case without prejudice.” Again, they relied on Vincencio, “but this time for the proposition that ‘[o]ur legal system favors disposition of litigation on the merits.’” The court noted that had “the trial court dismissed this case with prejudice, plaintiffs would have been deprived of a disposition on the merits. But [it] instead dismissed the case without prejudice, allowing [them] the opportunity to promptly refile the case (which they did) and ultimately obtain a disposition on the merits (which they will receive once the stay of the new case pending this appeal is lifted). In sum, the trial court’s dismissal of the case without prejudice has effectively granted plaintiffs the fifth adjournment of trial that they seemed to request in the courtroom on [3/4/24]. Even if the dismissal without prejudice must be reviewed despite the fact that it effectively gave plaintiffs what they wanted on” 3/4/24, the court found no basis for relief. It concluded the trial court did not abuse its “discretion in any of the actions” it took on the morning of the scheduled “trial or in the days leading up to the trial date.” Affirmed.