Although this Court held that the action had not been stayed, the opinion, read broadly, suggested that if dismissal for lack of progress was inappropriate for technical or procedural reasons, then that party might be entitled to have the action reinstated. Gerbig v White Motor Credit Corp, 165 Mich. App. 372, 375; 418 N.W.2d 468 (1987). In Bolster v Monroe Co Bd of Rd Comm'rs, this Court identified the delay between the order dismissing the case and the motion to reinstate it as a relevant consideration. Bolster implicitly recognized that parties unable to demonstrate that they made progress after dismissal will be unlikely to make progress if a case is reinstated, making reinstatement futile.
As with plaintiff's counsel in Kamieniecki, Mr. Betrus' attempt to "play horse" with the court must not be permitted. We hold also that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in either entering a no-progress dismissal on Mrs. Bolster's claim or in refusing to reinstate her claim. Gerbig v White Motor Credit Corp, 165 Mich. App. 372, 373-374; 418 N.W.2d 468 (1987); Hoad v Macomb Circuit Judge, 298 Mich. 462, 468; 299 N.W. 146 (1941). Plaintiffs failed to show that they were making progress in the case or that failure to prosecute was not due to their own fault or lack of reasonable diligence.