Hanson v. Disotell

¶ 17. At issue is the four-year period from July 2005, when this Court issued its mandate remanding the case, until October 2009, when Hanson filed a motion to set the trial. The majority holds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the case with prejudice for failure to prosecute because there was no action of record by the plaintiff in four years and *349because Hanson’s motion to set the case for trial was filed as a “reaction” to the defendants’ motion to substitute counsel. Because these are not legally sufficient justifications for an involuntary dismissal under…