At a status hearing in a simplified procedure action arising from an alleged failed business venture, the defendants sought dismissal for delay after the plaintiff took no steps for more than two years following the close of pleadings.
The court held that the transitional provision in Rule 48.14(12) required application of the former version of Rule 48.14 because the status hearing had been scheduled before January 1, 2015.
Applying the Court of Appeal's status hearing jurisprudence, the court found the plaintiff's explanation for delay inadequate and noted the absence of any steps to advance the action.
The action was dismissed.
