Laddie v. Alaran Constr., Inc., No. SC-2025-0878, 2026 WL 1355836 (Ala. May 15, 2026). The Court (Wise, Sellers, Cook, and Parker, JJ., concur) reverses the Shelby Circuit Court’s dismissal with prejudice of homeowners’ and guarantors’ counterclaims under Ala. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute.
Alaran Construction sued defendants (homeowners and construction-loan guarantors) for breach of contract. The defendants asserted counterclaims for negligence, breach of contract, fraud, conversion, and slander of title. *1. Alaran filed multiple motions to dismiss the counterclaims on ripeness grounds, beginning with an initial motion on March 10, 2022, upon which the circuit court never ruled, followed by renewed motions on April 22, 2024 and repeatedly between July 8 and August 15, 2024. *2. On May 22, 2025, the defendants filed a written response addressing all arguments in Alaran’s July 8, 2024 renewed motion, and the circuit court scheduled a hearing for May 27, 2025 to address all pending motions. *2. The defendants and their counsel failed to appear at that hearing due to an alleged calendaring mistake. *2. Despite the explanation and the defendants’ otherwise active participation in the litigation, the circuit court dismissed all five counterclaims with prejudice on May 28, 2025, citing both the failure to appear in court and the purported failure to timely respond to the July 8, 2024 motion. *2-3.
The Court notes that a Rule 41(b) dismissal is a harsh sanction warranted only where there is a clear record of delay, willful default, or contumacious conduct. Id. at *2. Willful default or conduct is a conscious or intentional failure to act as opposed to accidental or involuntary noncompliance. Id. at *3. Because the circuit court is in the best position to assess the conduct at issue, a decision to dismiss for failure to prosecute is reversed only upon a showing of abuse of discretion. *2. The Court holds that the defendants’ inadvertent failure to appear, coupled with their active prosecution of counterclaims, did not constitute willful or contumacious conduct. *4. The Court reasons that the defendants were actively participating in the litigation process and that counsel’s same-day telephone notice of the calendaring mistake, combined with the defendants’ subsequent motion to vacate, did not rise to the extreme circumstances required for Rule 41(b) dismissal. *4.
The Court further explains that the defendants’ May 22, 2025 written response was timely because the circuit court issued no order setting an earlier deadline and the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure provide no particular timeline for responding to a motion to dismiss. *5. Thus, the circuit court erred in dismissing on the basis of an untimely response. *5.
Thus, the Court reverses the dismissal and remands for further proceedings, concluding that the circuit court exceeded its discretion in dismissing the defendants’ counterclaims. *5.