Court Opinion

ID: 9687590
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:38:23.292056+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:29.089629
License: Public Domain

Wahls, P.J.
(concurring in part and dissenting *704in part). I agree with the majority that the part of the order that imposed costs upon plaintiffs should be reversed. However, I would additionally find that the trial court abused its discretion in arbitrarily ordering the case to proceed, regardless, of the parties’ stipulation to stay the proceedings, simply because it was the oldest case on the court’s docket. Obviously, defendants were not concerned about proceeding with discovery, as evidenced by their stipulation to the August 1990 order to stay the proceedings an additional six months. I find no justification for the court’s sudden reversal of its past willingness to allow a stay, and subsequent dismissal of plaintiffs’ lawsuit, even though the dismissal was without prejudice. Accordingly, I decline to join the majority’s "no harm, no foul” analysis.