The plaintiff brought a motion for a contested status hearing under Rule 48.14(5) to prevent the dismissal of her historic sexual abuse action for delay.
The defendants argued for dismissal due to the plaintiff's delay and alleged prejudice.
The court found that the plaintiff provided an acceptable explanation for the delay, attributing significant portions to the defendants' procedural tactics and unusual circumstances like a catastrophic office fire suffered by plaintiff's counsel.
The court also found no non-compensable prejudice to the defendants, noting their shared responsibility for delays and lack of urgency.
The motion to dismiss was denied, and a timetable was imposed for the action to proceed to trial.
