Hanson v. Disotell, 106 So. 3d 345

OPM-USA leased property from Hanson to build a cellular tower; county code administrator denied a permit for height over property borders.
Hanson settled a contract dispute with OPM-USA after the permit denial.
Hanson amended the complaint adding Disotell, West Harrison Farms, J & J Investments, Clark, and Harrison County as defendants, alleging conspiracy to have his lease interfered with and permit rejected.
The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants; this Court reversed and remanded for trial in 2005.
From 2005 to 2009, no record action occurred; in 2009 Hanson moved to set a trial date, leading to a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution by several defendants.
The trial court dismissed the case for failure to prosecute; the Court of Appeals affirmed; this Court granted certiorari and upheld the dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) was proper	Hanson maintained delays were due to Hurricane Katrina and related disruptions, not dilatory conduct	Defendants argued the four-year inactivity and delays warranted dismissal	No reversible error; dismissal affirmed
Whether the delay was caused by plaintiff or extrinsic factors and lesser sanctions were appropriate	Delays were largely due to external factors; lesser sanctions could suffice	Delays showed dilatoriness justifying dismissal without lesser sanctions	Discretion not abused; four-year inactivity supported dismissal
Whether the record supports consideration of lesser sanctions or prejudice to defendants	No clear showing of prejudice or useful lesser sanctions were considered	Record showed practical prejudice and that lesser sanctions would not suffice	Court found no abuse of discretion; upheld dismissal

Hanson v. Disotell, 106 So.3d 351 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (appeal from Rule 41(b) dismissal context; clarifies standards for dismissal for lack of prosecution)
Watson v. Lillard, 493 So.2d 1277 (Miss. 1986) (standard for reviewing Rule 41(b) dismissals)
Collins v. Koppers, Inc., 59 So.3d 582 (Miss. 2011) (cites dismissal standards and sanctions framework)
Holder v. Orange Grove Med. Specialties, P.A., 54 So.3d 192 (Miss. 2010) (discusses abuse of discretion in dismissal context)
Hillman v. Weatherly, 14 So.3d 721 (Miss. 2009) (addresses severity of Rule 41(b) sanctions)
AT & T v. Days Inn of Winona, 720 So.2d 178 (Miss. 1998) (aggravating factors for delay and need for lesser sanctions)
Jackson Pub. Sch. Dist. v. Head ex rel. Russell, 67 So.3d 761 (Miss. 2011) (delays must be result of plaintiff's failure to prosecute)