MAX N. TOBIAS, JR., Judge.

Blake Robertson ("Blake"), the plaintiff, appeals the involuntary dismissal of his lawsuit with prejudice against his father, Arthur Robertson ("Mr. Robertson"), and Lafayette Insurance Company ("Lafayette"). After reviewing the record and applicable law, we affirm the lower court's judgment.

This matter arose after Blake fell off the roof of a house owned by his parents, Mr. Robertson and Mrs. Linda Robertson, sustaining injuries. Suit was originally filed on 9 January 2008 against Lafayette only and was properly served upon it. Lafayette filed an exception of no cause of action that was set for hearing on 23 May 2008. Neither Blake nor his counsel appeared for that hearing and his claims were dismissed without prejudice in a judgment dated 5 June 2008. Blake requested, and was granted, a new trial on the exception.

On 20 October 2008, Blake filed a supplemental and amending petition that added some new allegations against Lafayette and named Mr. and Mrs. Robertson as parties defendants. Service of the supplemental and amending petition was made on Lafayette, but the plaintiff requested that service on the Mr. and Mrs. Robertson be withheld. Lafayette filed a motion for summary judgment that was opposed by Blake; the motion was ultimately denied. Discovery occurred as reflected by Blake's deposition of 28 July 2009 and Blake's responses to interrogatories and requests for production, both of which were attached to the motion for summary judgment.1

On 7 July 2010, Lafayette moved the trial court to conduct a status conference, which was scheduled to occur telephonically on 5 August 2010, and to provide the parties with discovery deadlines and a trial date. The district court, as a result of a scheduling conference, issued a trial order on 5 August 2010 that in pertinent part states that "counsel certifies that all potential parties had been served, and answered." The order required the parties to file witness lists on specific dates, 10 November 2010 for the plaintiff and 24 November 2010 for the defendants. Although the order is not signed by the parties or their counsel, it is presumed that both counselors participated in its confection as no allegation has been made to the contrary in this appeal.2 The order reflects that it was mailed, apparently to counsel.

Blake neither caused Mr. and Mrs. Robertson to be served with citation following the status conference nor filed a witness list. On 15 November 2010, Lafayette moved the trial court to strike all of Blake's witnesses once the deadline for his filing a witness list had expired. That motion was set for hearing on 17 December 2010. Blake's counsel failed to appear for that hearing at which time the district court granted the motion.3 Blake sought no supervisory review of that interlocutory judgment and never filed a witness list.4

Trial was scheduled to commence on Tuesday, 15 February 2011. Lafayette and its counsel appeared for trial; however, neither Blake nor his counsel was present. It was discovered that plaintiff's counsel had left voicemail messages for Lafayette's counsel as well as for the trial court at some time between 8:30 and 9:00 a.m. on the morning of trial, stating that she was ill, thereby requesting a continuance. The defendants moved for, and were granted, an involuntary dismissal with prejudice of Blake's lawsuit. See La. C.C.P. art. 1672. It is unclear whether either defendants' counsel or the trial court was aware of Blake's counsel's telephone calls before the trial court dismissed the suit.

Blake filed a motion for new trial, arguing that his counsel had been very ill and that should have been a valid excuse to fail to appear for trial, although counsel failed to advise the court or the defendants of such on Monday, the day before the trial.5 During the discussion of the motion, Blake's counsel recalled that no answer was filed on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Robertson and that they had never been served with the supplemental and amended petition. The trial court recessed for the weekend, allowing counsel to prepare to argue the meaning of this development. The plaintiff's counsel then filed into the record a waiver of service signed by Mr. Robertson on 20 October 2008, obtained by her but not previously filed into the record.6 Although Mr. and Mrs. Robertson were never served, Lafayette's counsel waived Mr. Robertson's objection to personal jurisdiction for lack of service on the morning of trial. At the close of the hearing, the trial court denied the motion for new trial and this appeal followed.

Blake alleges that the trial court erred by (1) setting the matter for trial when Mr. and Mrs. Robertson had not filed an answer, (2) striking all of the plaintiff's witnesses, including the plaintiff himself, (3) failing to grant the plaintiff's verbal motion for a continuance on the morning of trial due to his counsel's illness, and (4) denying the motion for new trial to set aside the involuntary dismissal.

The issue of Mr. and Mrs. Robertson's failure to file an answer is moot as Lafayette's counsel made an appearance for Mr. Robertson appeared at trial, thereby waiving service and jurisdiction. We find the failure of Mr. Robertson to file an answer has no bearing on this case.7

We next address the striking of the plaintiff's witnesses for failure to file a witness list. Our courts have long held that the theory inherent in pre-trial civil procedure is to avoid surprise and to permit an orderly disposition of the case. Eanes v. McKnight, 262 La. 915, 931-32, 265 So.2d 220, 226-27 (1972); Brooks v. Sewerage and Water Bd. of New Orleans, 02-2246, p. 5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/30/03), 847 So.2d 639, 643. It is also well-recognized that the trial court has wide discretion to implement a pretrial order and insure that its terms are enforced. Id.

La. C.C.P. art. 1551 states:

While a harsh remedy, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion by striking Blake's witnesses for the failure of his counsel to file a witness list.8 Blake never sought to modify the pretrial order to obtain more time in which to file the list. Further, he had sufficient time before the scheduled trial date to correct the deficiency.

The motion to strike witnesses was filed by Lafayette on 15 November 2010 and set for hearing on 17 December 2010. The rule to show cause was personally served on Blake, through his counsel, on 3 December 2010. The plaintiff could have filed a witness list before the hearing and requested the court to dismiss the motion; he did not. Additionally, the plaintiff, through his counsel, did not appear at the hearing. The judgment on the motion was not signed until 4 January 2011 and the notice of judgment was mailed to the following day. Again, with a trial date of 15 February 2011, the plaintiff still had time to take some action in an attempt to remedy the situation, but did not. Therefore, we cannot find an abuse of discretion by the trial court.9

An involuntary dismissal for failure to appear is addressed in La. C.C.P. art. 1672, which states in pertinent part:

The standard of review of an involuntary dismissal is abuse of discretion. In O'Rourke v. Nora's Creole Café, 03-0810, p. 3 (La.App. 4 Cir. 8/13/03), 854 So.2d 976, 978, we stated:

We also stated in Hebert v. C.F. Bean Corp., 00-1029, p. 3 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/25/01), 785 So.2d 1029, 1031:

No inconsistency exists between O'Rourke and Hebert. If a trial court is manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong in granting an involuntary dismissal, it would simultaneously abuse its discretion in granting the dismissal.

The trial court also has wide discretion when deciding whether to grant a new trial. La. C.C.P. art. 1973. Therefore, we review the denial of a new trial by applying the abuse of discretion standard. Dowl v. Redi Home Health Care Assn., 04-1182, p. 7 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/22/04), 917 So.2d 434, 440.

After reviewing the record and the repeated failure by the plaintiff's counsel to prosecute this case, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion or was manifestly erroneous by granting the motion for involuntary dismissal and denying the motion for new trial. The trial court gave the plaintiff's counsel every opportunity to correct previous mistakes and move this matter forward.

The trial court stated at the hearing on 8 April 2011:

We understand that a dismissal with prejudice is highly prejudicial to the plaintiff himself, however, as remarked by the court, this was not the first time the plaintiff's counsel did not appear in court or do something which counsel was required or ordered to do. The trial court was within its discretion to grant the involuntary dismissal and deny the motion for new trial.

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

AFFIRMED.