The trial court found that this was not a satisfactory explanation for the two year and nine month delay. The explanation that counsel was not in a position to prepare and try the case is simply a tactical decision to delay taking any action on the case until plaintiffs' counsel was ready to go forward. The plaintiff will have done everything necessary to move the case forward to trial simply by placing the case on the issue docket. If there is inactivity for more than two years after the case has been placed at issue, the fault ordinarily lies with the court rather than with the plaintiff. There are no immediate deadlines that must be met once a case is placed at issue.
Illness can be an explanation for postponing a trial of a case on a published trial list.
However, illness is not a reasonable excuse for the failure to take the steps that are required in order for a case to be placed at the bottom of the list of cases that will eventually appear on a published jury trial list. The trial court subsequently denied Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration resulting in the instant appeal. The sole issue for our consideration is whether the delay caused by the dissolution of Plaintiffs' counsel's law firm and Plaintiffs' failure to obtain substitute counsel combined with Plaintiffs' physical and mental infirmities tolled the period of presumptive prejudice caused by the two-year period of docket inactivity under Penn Piping . Granting a dismissal for failure to prosecute an action within a reasonable time is within the discretion of the trial court, and that order will not be disturbed on appeal except where there is proof of abuse of discretion. A court may exercise its discretion to enter a judgment of non pros where a party to the proceeding has shown a lack of due diligence in failing to proceed with reasonable promptitude, there has been no compelling reason for the delay, and the delay has caused prejudice to the adverse party.