Annett v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

[¶ 36] While I agree the plaintiffs have not shown “activity” in this case for over a year, establishing “record activity” should not be necessary.3 SDCL 15-11-11 merely requires “activity,” not record activity. The majority uses Holmoe v. Reuss, 403 N.W.2d 30 (S.D.1987), as the stepping stone to require “record activity.” In Holmoe we noted plaintiffs failure to preserve an adequate record for appeal. Id. at 31. However, in that case, as here, there was also no file activity. Hence, Holmoe’s underlying rationale must be examined before its needless expansion in this case. Holmoe cites Reed…