The plaintiff moved to restore its action to the trial list under Rule 48.11, while the defendant cross-moved to dismiss the action for delay under Rule 24.01.
The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the significant delay in prosecuting the action since its inception in 2012, and also failed to demonstrate that the defendant would not suffer non-compensable prejudice if the action were restored.
The court drew an adverse inference from the plaintiff's reliance on lawyer affidavits rather than a deponent with direct personal knowledge.
Given the plaintiff's history of contempt findings and failure to pay costs in related litigation, the court concluded the plaintiff lacked good faith in prosecuting the action.
Consequently, the plaintiff's motion was dismissed, and the defendant's motion to dismiss the action for delay was granted, with an order to discharge the certificate of pending litigation.