John Phillip Metz Iii, Joann Metz, Jaime M. Metz, and John P. Metz, Iv, Appellants v. Amoco Oil Company, a Foreign…

Summary

The court affirmed dismissal of the Metzes’ toxic-exposure action and the resulting default judgment because their appellate challenges were either unsupported by the record or not preserved in the district court. Although the court recognized that a litigant has a right to proceed without counsel and criticized the manner in which the trial court handled counsel’s withdrawal, it held that the Metzes had not asserted that right below and that their other challenges to the default judgment were likewise waived. Justice Lavorato, joined by Justice Carter, dissented and would have reversed and remanded because the trial court lacked authority to condition prosecution of the action on obtaining counsel and should have granted relief from the default for excusable neglect.