Michael Tersigni

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action for delay under Rule 24.01.

The plaintiff, who was self-represented for the first 33 months of the litigation, had delayed advancing the action because the defendants claimed they were conducting a forensic audit into alleged fraudulent activity implicating the plaintiff.

The court found the delay was not inordinate, the plaintiff had a reasonable excuse due to settlement attempts and waiting for the audit, and the defendants failed to demonstrate actual prejudice.

The motion to dismiss for delay was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought motions to compel the examination of a defendant on behalf of a corporate defendant and for further and better affidavits of documents from several defendants.

The parties agreed to dismiss the examination motion and portions of the production motion without prejudice.

The court ordered one defendant to produce certain financial documents relevant to personal enrichment and an itemized Schedule B list, but dismissed the remaining requests for further documents and better email descriptors, finding insufficient evidence of missing documents and that the current descriptors were proportionate.

The defendant moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action as statute-barred by the Limitations Act, 2002, concerning unpaid pension contributions.

The court found that the plaintiff ought to have known that litigation was an appropriate means to remedy her claim by October 27, 2011, given clear denials of liability from the defendant and the plaintiff's representation by counsel.

As the action was commenced on September 10, 2015, it was outside the two-year limitation period.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, and the action was dismissed.