Cited by

¶ 14 (App. 2011); (noting that “trial courts have the inherent power to dismiss a case on their own motion if the case has not been diligently prosecuted.”).

¶ 14 (App. 2011); (“[T]he involuntary dismissal of an action pursuant to Rule 41(b) is a matter directed to the sound discretion of the trial court.”).

¶ 7 (App. 2011); ¶ 4 (App. 2000).

cal Rule 3.6(a)(3) states that a “civil action shall be dismissed for failure to prosecute upon written motion and notice to opposing counsel, at the discretion of the court” based on “appropriate reasons.” ¶9 Dismissal for failure to prosecute “operates as an adjudication on the merits[,]” Rule 41(b), which this court reviews for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 14 (App. 2011).

P. 41(b), which we will review for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 14 (App. 2011).

11 NORTH et al. v. VPS et al. Decision of the Court ¶ 14 (App. 2011) (dismissal for failure to prosecute) (); ¶ 10 (App. 2003) (

–27, ¶¶ 15, 17, – 45 (App. 2011) (affirming a dismissal for lack of prosecution because the plaintiff had not prosecuted the case for more than two years since she first amended her complaint); see also Price, 57 Ariz. at 145, 112 P.2d at 211 (four years); Old Republic Nat’l Title Ins.

¶ 14, (appellate court reviews superior court’s order of dismissal for lack of prosecution for abuse of discretion); Copeland v. Ariz. Veterans Mem’l Coliseum & Exposition Ctr., (appellate court reviews superior court’s denial of relie

¶12 We review the trial court’s grant of the motion to dismiss for abuse of discretion, which occurs when the court’s determination “exceeded the bounds of reason.” ¶ 14 (App. 2011) (holding that we review a dismissal pursuant to Ariz. R. Civ.

¶ 14, (“An ‘abuse of discretion’ is discretion manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons.”).

323, 325-26, ¶¶ 10-12, -44 (App. 2011) (holding that the failure to serve the notice of claim on the Attorney General barred claims against the State); cf. Batty v. Glendale Union High Sch.