Summary
concluding that the district court "properly dismissed plaintiff's action and granted defendants summary judgment" where "[p]laintiff failed to comply with an order that he either provide full and complete answers to written interrogatories within 30 days or have his action dismissed"
Summary of this case from Dunham v. OppermanOpinion
No. 45718.
February 6, 1976.
Dismissal — failure to comply with order requiring party to answer interrogatories — propriety of dismissal.
Action in the Hennepin County District Court wherein plaintiff sought damages from the attorneys who had represented his former wife in a divorce action, William J. Corrick and others, also known as and d.b.a. Corrick, Miller, Meyer Nelson. The court, A. Paul Lommen, Judge, granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, and plaintiff appealed from the judgment entered. Affirmed.
Albert Thomas O'Neil, Sr., pro se, for appellant.
Richards, Montgomery, Cobb Bassford and Lynn G. Truesdell III, for respondents.
Considered and decided by the court without oral argument.
This is an appeal by plaintiff, acting as his own attorney, from judgment entered against him in an action against the attorneys who represented his deceased former wife in her divorce suit against him, a suit which ended in settlement. We have carefully examined the record and conclude that the trial court properly dismissed plaintiff's action and granted defendants summary judgment. Plaintiff failed to comply with an order that he either provide full and complete answers to written interrogatories within 30 days or have his action dismissed, and therefore dismissal or default judgment was justified under Rule 37.02 (2) (c), Rules of Civil Procedure.
Affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE KELLY took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.