The plaintiffs brought a motion to prevent their action from being dismissed for delay under Rule 48.14(7) and to establish a timetable for the action.
The defendants opposed, arguing the five-year limitation period had passed and that they were awaiting additional documents.
The court found that the plaintiffs had provided an acceptable explanation for the delay, largely due to the defendants' refusal to provide discovery dates and their concerns about in-person discoveries during the pandemic.
The court determined that the defendants would suffer no non-compensable prejudice.
The motion was granted, a timetable was imposed, and no costs were awarded.
