Opinion ID: 2494802
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether There is a Clear Record of Delay.

Text: ¶ 14. There has been a clear record of delay; however, as Judge Green notes, the delay is excusable. Head filed a complaint on December 13, 2004, and amended this complaint on March 31, 2005, and April 12, 2005. On August 15, 2005, Head filed responses to JPS's requests for admission. After this date, the record is largely silent as to any action in pursuit of this claim. ¶ 15. However, in its response to the motion to dismiss filed by JPS, Head explains the delay, stating illness and personal problems of counsel. In Watson, this Court stated it was loath to presume that any Mississippi trial judge would allow a serious action to be lost because of delays attributable solely to plaintiff's illness or infirmity. Watson, 493 So.2d at 1279-80. Also, as stated by this Court in Barry, the mere fact that delay occurs in the prosecution of a case is not sufficient to warrant dismissal for want of prosecution. It must be clear from the record that the delay was the result of the plaintiff's failure to prosecute the claim, rather than extrinsic factors beyond the control of the plaintiff. Barry, 47 So.3d at 694; see M.R.C.P. 41(b). ¶ 16. JPS argues that Head was dilatory in being unavailable for several months when JPS was seeking to hold a hearing on its motion to dismiss. In actuality, JPS and counsel for Head could not agree on a hearing date, and JPS ultimately set the hearing date. Head's counsel did not purposely schedule a conflict on the date of a hearing; a conflict already existed when counsel was informed of the hearing date.