(dissenting).
[¶ 29.] I respectfully dissent. A trial court may dismiss civil cases, “where there has been no activity for one year, unless good cause is shown to the contrary.” SDCL 15-11-11; Devitt v. Hayes, 1996 SD 71, ¶ 12, 551 N.W.2d 298, 300; see also Annett v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 1996 SD 58, ¶ 14, 548 N.W.2d 798, 803. In addition, pursuant to SDCL 15 — 6— 41(b), “ ‘a defendant may file for dismissal of an action or of any claim against him’ if the plaintiff fails to prosecute.” Devitt, 1996 SD 71, ¶ 12, 551 N.W.2d at 301 (quoting SDCL 15-6-41(b)). In reviewing a trial court’s dismissal of a claim for failure to prosecute, this court determines whether the trial court abused its discretion. Devitt, 1996 SD 71, ¶ 7, 551 N.W.2d at 300; Annett, 1996 SD 58, ¶ 12, 548 N.W.2d at *346802; Schwartzle v. Austin Co., 429 N.W.2d 69, 71 (S.D.1988). Abuse of discretion is a decision which is not justified by, and clearly against, reason and evidence. Devitt, 1996 SD 71, ¶ 7, 551 N.W.2d at 300 (citations omitted). Employing this standard, “we will not reverse a decision if “we believe a judicial mind, in view of the law and the circumstances, could reasonably have reached that conclusion.’” Devitt, 1996 SD 71, ¶ 7, 551 N.W.2d at 300 (quoting Rosen’s, Inc. v. Juhnke, 513 N.W.2d 575, 576 (S.D.1994)) (other citations omitted).
[¶ 30.] It is well established that it is the plaintiffs burden to proceed with the action. Devitt, 1996 SD 71, ¶ 13, 551 N.W.2d at 301; Annett, 1996 SD 58, ¶ 12, 548 N.W.2d at 802 (citations omitted). “A defendant need only meet the plaintiff step by step.” Annett, 1996 SD 58, ¶ 12, 548 N.W.2d at 802-03 (citing Holmoe v. Reuss, 403 N.W.2d 30, 31 (S.D.1987)).
It is true that the defendant may bring about a trial of the case, but he is under no legal duty to do so. His presence in the case is involuntary, and his attitude toward it is quite different from that of the plaintiff, he is put to a defense .only, and can be charged with no neglect for failing to do more than meet the plaintiff step by step[.]
Holmoe, 403 N.W.2d at 31 (quoting Fox v. Perpetual Nat. Life Ins. Co., 273 N.W.2d 166, 168 (1978)).
[¶ 31.] In this case, there is no question that the plaintiff failed to proceed with this action for more than one year. The lawsuit was commenced in 1994. The last deposition was conducted in November of 1995, which was two years prior to the filing of the motion to dismiss presently before the court. Negotiations had not been conducted in over a year. During this time these parties were involved in a separate declaratory judgment action, however, this does not provide a basis for the plaintiff to avoid its obligation to prosecute the present action. Therefore, on this record, I cannot find the trial court abused its discretion in granting the motion and I would affirm.
[¶ 32.] I am authorized to state that Chief Justice Miller joins in this dissent.