United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, Local Union No. 2371 v. Merchandising Equipment Group, Division of Meg Manufacturing Corp., 2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 87

The case dates to 1992 when MEG closed; 220 former MEG employees and a union claim owed compensation and back pay.
HP and the Bank held security interests in MEG’s assets; the Union asserted liens were superior to HP and Bank interests.
Summary judgment motions were filed in 1995–1996; a 1997 hearing occurred before a special judge after the original judge recused.
From 1997 to 2011 the special judge did not rule on the pending summary-judgment motions; routine CCS activity occurred but no final resolution.
The Union requested a status conference in 2001 and again in 2008; no substantive action occurred for years after 2008.
HP moved to dismiss for failure to prosecute in March 2011; the court granted dismissal, with the Union appealing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal for failure to prosecute was proper	Union emphasizes extended delay due to complexity and reliance on judge’s rulings.	Defendants contend the delay was inexcusable and unabated for a decade-plus; dismissal appropriate.	Dismissal affirmed; unprecedented delay with no excusable justification.

Belcaster v. Miller, 785 N.E.2d 1164 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (burden on plaintiff to push case; abuse of discretion if delay unjustified)
Benton v. Moore, 622 N.E.2d 1002 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (purpose of Rule 41(E) to compel diligent prosecution)
Olson v. Alick's Drugs, Inc., 863 N.E.2d 314 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (long delays may support dismissal when no excuse)
Lee v. Friedman, 637 N.E.2d 1318 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (dismissal upheld for protracted inaction)
Lee v. Pugh, 811 N.E.2d 881 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (one-year delay with no action can justify dismissal)
Beemer v. Elskens, 677 N.E.2d 1119 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (dilatory conduct may warrant dismissal)