Table of Contents TITLE 25. CIVIL PROCEDURE CHAPTER 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS Part 1. Civil Actions – Form and Commencement
Edition 2021 Other editions
Current Version 2025 2023 2021 2019 2017 2015 2013 2011 2009 2007 2005 2003 2001 1999 1997 1995 1978 Scanned 1979 Scanned 1981 Scanned 1983 Scanned 1985 Scanned 1986 Scanned 1987 Scanned 1989 Scanned
1995 forward is searchable text. Earlier volumes are page scans.
Prev
1 25-1-101 25-1-102 25-1-103 4 25-1-104

Mont. Code Ann. § 25-1-104

(2021)

Failure to prosecute – dismissal on initiative of court

In a district court action in which it appears on the face of the record that activity by filing of pleadings, order of court, or otherwise has not occurred for a period of 2 years and no stay has been issued or approved by the court, the court or, if the court does not act, the clerk of court shall serve notice of lack of prosecution to each party at the party's last-known address. If a pleading, order, or other activity does not occur within the 60-day period following the service of the notice and if a stay is not issued or approved during the 60-day period, the court shall, on its own motion and without further notice or hearing, dismiss the action without prejudice.

Opinions construing this section

4 opinions
2024 MT 238N Oct 22, 2024 Affirmed
Reservation v. Payne Financial, et al
Majority by Ingrid Gustafson · 5 to 0
ollowing the mandatory appellate mediation, leaving only NPR and the State in this cause. ¶5 NPR argues the District Court erred in dismissing its case under § 25-1-104, MCA, asserting that the dismissal occurred before the expiration of two years of inactivity and that its pleading was filed within the court’s 60-day deadline.
2023 MT 30N Feb 21, 2023 Reversed
Centron Services v. C. Delorean
Dissenting by Mike McGrath · 4 to 1
delays. Centron was aware, or should have been aware, that courts are empowered to dismiss claims which have no filing activity over a period of two years. See § 25-1-104, MCA. 16 ¶33 The District Court’s rejection of Centron’s belated, non-specific, and unconvincing proffered justifications in support of reinstating the c
2021 MT 50N Feb 23, 2021 Reversed
C. Wagner v. State
Majority by Mike McGrath · 5 to 0
four years, until November 16, 2018, when Judge McElyea—who had taken over the case from her predecessor—entered a Notice for Failure to Prosecute citing § 25-1-104, MCA (providing that a court may dismiss a case inactive for over two years after a 60-day notice) and stating that “[u]nless a pleading or other document is file
2018 MT 183 Jul 24, 2018 Affirmed
Eci Credit v. Diamond S
Majority by Ingrid Gustafson · 4 to 2
ECI offered no explanation why it had taken no action after the summary judgment order, but argued the District Court could not dismiss the action pursuant to § 25-1-104, MCA, because it had not given the parties notice and allowed them the opportunity to recommence prosecution. ¶9 Diamond opposed ECI’s motion. It acknowledged t
2018 MT 183 Jul 24, 2018 Affirmed
Eci Credit v. Diamond S
Dissenting by James Jeremiah Shea · 4 to 2
rsuant to [ ] § 25-1-104, [MCA],” but because a warning is not a prerequisite to dismissal under Rule 41(b), and because ECI did not argue it was unaware of § 25-1-104, MCA, and Rule 41(b), the District Court determined this factor weighed only “slightly in favor” of ECI. In affirming the District Court’s ruling on this poin
Official Annotations archive.org, 2021 edition
History:
En. Sec. 1, Ch. 17, L. 2011 (SB 21 - Shockley, Jim (R) SD 45)
Source text on leg.mt.gov