The defendant municipality brought a motion under Rule 24.01 to dismiss the plaintiff's action for delay.
The action, concerning a municipal sewer construction project, had been set down for trial in 2019 following a consent timetable order.
Subsequent delays were due to institutional factors and a consented adjournment, not the plaintiff's conduct.
Applying the principle that only delay subsequent to a consent order requires explanation, the court found the plaintiff had complied with the timetable and dismissed the motion, ordering the matter to be placed on the trial list.
