The defendant brought a motion to dismiss the action under Rule 3.04(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure on the basis that the plaintiff failed to comply with a court‑ordered litigation timetable.
The court reviewed the procedural history and found that the timetable had been altered several times with the consent of both parties.
The evidence also showed that the defendant himself had not delivered an Affidavit of Documents as required by the timetable.
Applying the jurisprudence that dismissal is a discretionary remedy reserved for egregious conduct, the court concluded the moving party failed to meet the required burden.
The motion to dismiss was therefore refused.
