Schultz v. State, 992 N.W.2d 779

On August 9, 2018, Schultz was injured in a car accident involving State employee Karina Adame; he filed a political-subdivision tort claim and withdrew it on August 7, 2020, then filed suit the same day.
The State answered on September 14, 2020, and no recorded case activity followed for about 18 months.
On March 15, 2022, the district court issued an order to show cause; the April 21, 2022 hearing revealed counsel had done "not much" pre-hearing but had an agreed progression schedule and were ready to proceed.
The district court dismissed the case for failure to prosecute, noting lack of activity but acknowledging it had not examined the statute-of-limitations issue; dismissal would bar refiling.
Schultz moved to reconsider/reinstate, submitting emails and an affidavit showing an agreed progression plan and the State’s assent to continue; the court denied reconsideration and refused to reopen the record.
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the district court abused its discretion by failing to weigh the established factors for good cause before dismissing and by denying reconsideration despite evidence both parties were prepared to proceed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the district court abuse its discretion by dismissing the case for failure to prosecute?	Dismissal was improper because the court failed to consider all "good cause" factors (statute of limitations, length of delay, excuses, prior dismissals); parties had an agreed progression schedule and the State did not oppose proceeding.	The case had been pending ~18 months with essentially no action by Schultz; dismissal was within the court's discretion to manage its docket.	Reversed — court abused discretion by focusing only on pre-hearing activity and failing to analyze required factors (including statute of limitations and less drastic sanctions).
Did the district court abuse its discretion by denying Schultz’s motion to reconsider/reinstate?	Newly submitted emails and affidavit showed the parties agreed to proceed and had a plan; denial ignored evidence of willingness to move forward.	The court found no good cause shown and declined to reopen the record.	Reversed — denial further evidenced the court’s failure to consider the relevant factors and the post-hearing evidence.

Marcuzzo v. Bank of the West, 290 Neb. 809 (2015) (plaintiff must prosecute with reasonable diligence; noncompliance with progression standards can justify dismissal absent good cause)
Talkington v. Womens Servs., 256 Neb. 2 (1999) (district court has discretion to dismiss for want of prosecution; review for abuse of discretion)
Schaeffer v. Hunter, 200 Neb. 221 (1978) (identifies four factors for "good cause": statute of limitations, length of delay, excuses, prior dismissals/reinstatements)
Carrel v. Serco Inc., 291 Neb. 61 (2015) (public policy favors resolution on the merits; courts should consider less drastic sanctions)
Billups v. Jade, Inc., 240 Neb. 494 (1992) (upholding dismissal where long pendency and prior dismissals/reinstatements supported sanction)
Buttercase v. Davis, 313 Neb. 1 (2022) (defines abuse of discretion standard for appellate review)