Background
Sherri Strole, a self-represented RV resident, sued Fairgrounds RV LLC, its member and statutory agent Mark Wirth, and Orchard Ranch Park LLC in Yavapai County Superior Court. She alleged, among other claims, violations of the Arizona Fair Housing Act and the Arizona Mobile Home Parks Residential Landlord and Tenant Act after disputes concerning her campsite and alleged unauthorized access to her property.
Fairgrounds moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The superior court did not rule on that motion. After more than 210 days passed without a joint report and proposed scheduling order, the clerk placed the case on the Rule 38.1 dismissal calendar. Strole sought to continue the matter on that calendar, but the court denied the request and entered a judgment dismissing her complaint with prejudice, finding it “without foundation,” and awarding Fairgrounds $21,255 in attorney fees and $398.80 in costs.
The Court’s Holding
The Arizona Court of Appeals held that the superior court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to continue the case on the dismissal calendar. Strole had not diligently advanced the case, missed hearings, did not submit the required joint report and scheduling order, and failed to establish good cause for her failure to appear or for relief from the dismissal-calendar requirements.
But Rule 38.1(d)(2) authorizes dismissal without prejudice only. The appellate court concluded that dismissal with prejudice was improper, particularly because the trial court had not ruled on Fairgrounds’ pending jurisdictional motion, which likewise could support only a dismissal without prejudice. The court vacated the judgment, including the fee and cost award, and remanded for entry of a dismissal without prejudice. It left any fee-and-cost award to the superior court’s discretion on remand.
Key Takeaways
- A Rule 38.1(d)(2) dismissal-calendar dismissal must be without prejudice.
- Filing activity that does not move a case forward does not establish diligent prosecution.
- Vacating a with-prejudice dismissal also required vacatur of the associated attorney-fee and cost award.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that Arizona trial courts may enforce case-management deadlines and dismiss stagnant cases, even when a self-represented litigant has made numerous filings. But the form of dismissal matters: a dismissal-calendar ruling cannot be converted into an adjudication on the merits.
Because the decision is a nonprecedential memorandum decision, it may be cited only as authorized by Arizona Supreme Court Rule 111(c).