Opinion ID: 1537763
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Dismissal Motion Granted

Text: In opposing the motion to dismiss, the attorney for the Original Plaintiffs argued that the Trustee had only had seven months to evaluate the case. Therefore, the attorney argued that any prior delays by the Original Plaintiffs should not defeat the Trustee's interest in having a trial on the merits. The efforts by the Trustee in the Court of Chancery to separate himself from the prior inaction and delays by the Original Plaintiffs was in obvious conflict with the tactical decision of the Trustee not to become a party and to have his attorney, who had only entered his appearance on behalf of the Original Plaintiffs, continue prosecution of the action by . . . the original party under Rule 25(c). The Court of Chancery concluded that the failure of either the Original Plaintiffs or the Trustee to prosecute the action (or even to contact the court or opposing counsel) for seven months after confirmation of the Joint Plan was unreasonable and prejudicial in view of the Original Plaintiffs' prior history of causing delays. The Court of Chancery noted that the Original Plaintiffs and the Trustee were acting in concert with the same attorney and that the Gaylords aren't out of this. The Court of Chancery granted the defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute.