friends automobile was parked in their garage as it happened between the other two vehicles and filed a complaint accordingly the complaint was filed a motion to dismiss was granted as to the five count point zero one of the five pounds was dismissed with prejudice the other four pounds were dismissed without prejudice but with no specific was filed july tenth of two thousand and nine and the hearing an order hearing was held order entered on september the twenty ninth two thousand nine the amended complaint was thereafter filed the more than twenty three months later on september twenty first two thousand and eleven motion to dismiss filed these temperatures twenty of two thousand delay there is no explanation in the record and i have to venture towards an explanation i have to go outside or if there is dismiss based on local rule three point seven which provides an relevant part in all cases where no appeal is pending and no action of record for a period of eight fifteen months on motion so the the the the a without explanation in the record it places this in the matter of an area of orks discretion so that's we have nothing in the record to substantiate a reasonable explanation for the delay him setting the motion for  that makes it kind of difficult to judge of whether or not just for abused his discretion in dismissing the case well i think of course question  assumes that something that was involved in the jackson case which is really the only case involved to justify it the exercise of discretion here  it wasn't a matter of failing to set the case for a hearing as which was the case and jackson a motion was filed and it was not set for hearing for period of i absence of authorities supporting what the french court did given with the record before this fork is an indication of an abuse of discretion and when i say the absence of the authority i began  emphasize that i don't think the jackson case really provides any authority for the works action and i haven't seen any case of hinder in the t are before this or albeit that i'd like to have more circumstances in the record but with the circumstances that are before this court there's day late was somewhat shorter bot the difference is that there were three children whose custody was in place for that eighteen months where arrangements have been  the pains in this case so there is nothing in this record to substantiate or justify any pleasure does to either party and nothing to but i believe the that absence in the case an unusual position taken with respect to this particular rule and to the application  and is there prejudice and i think tanks are the second question first there's no suggestion or indication of prejudice to the defendant and  the pleading stages and saying what if anything might be raised by the events beyond the instant motion to dismiss or the first motion to dismiss which actually disposed of one of the  was a well written written order on that motion there was a briefing on the motion to reconsider there was a written order at that motion as well but the appellant never even  point seven provides the default that eighteen months to do something to advance your case judge ford recognize that here nothing was one hundred twenty three months briefly i'd like to speak to the jackson case which i think is the principal point of reliance by the defense and  something now the difference between the two cases is not well is not the point of the two cases and jackson is not the violation of a local role but what happened during the time that the local rule was not follow as we mentioned and jackson three children e to grant the motion of the alan in that case would be to upset all of those considerations  not the instant case none of those kinds of intervening events occur jackson simply does not justify a person stenchy a court's decision in the instan back to whether this is an abuse of discretion and facts in itself says is justice being done between the parties and jackson also looks to prejudice so the exercise of discretion in the