Court Opinion

ID: 9753649
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 19:21:49.468506+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:39.843131
License: Public Domain

KELLY, Associate Judge
(dissenting):
We have made it clear on more than one occasion that a ruling by the trial court on the question of lack of diligence in prosecution will be disturbed only in an extreme case. Akinyode v. Hawkins, D.C.App., 292 A.2d 795 (1972); Sitwell v. Government Employees Ins. Co., D.C.App., 263 A.2d 262 (1970); Shakesnider v. Rosenfeld, D.C.Mun.App., 144 A.2d 106 (1958); Berch v. Rosner, D.C.Mun.App., 136 A.2d 260 (1957). In my judgment this is not such a case. In its order granting the motion to dismiss the trial court found that “for a period of approximately 35 months the plaintiffs did not. actively prosecute this case . . . .” This unexplained delay,1 on undisputed facts,2 establishes lack of diligence as a matter of law. Sit-well, supra; Shakesnider, supra. Accordingly, rather than remanding the case to the trial court for further proceedings, I would affirm.

. As to the matter of professional courtesy, mentioned at oral argument, there apparently was no communication between counsel at any time during the pendency of this action.

. As to the reference in note 2 of the majority opinion concerning the record on appeal, it appears that the entire record was designated, except for the various summonses, and a transcript of oral argument on a motion is not part of an appellate record.