LASKER, U.S. District Judge
By Order of October 28, 1999, the defendants' motions to compel arbitration of the plaintiff's claims were granted. Since the plaintiff was pressing the claims, and no counterclaims have been asserted, it was to be expected that the plaintiff would initiate arbitration proceedings.
On February 10, 2000, counsel for GTE wrote to Myrick's counsel inquiring about her intentions to initiate arbitration, stating that both defendants were ready and willing to participate in appropriate proceedings. No response to this inquiry, or a further inquiry of February 17, was received.
In April 2000, GTE was dissolved, and it no longer has employees in the state of Massachusetts, with the result that witnesses for the defendants may or may not be subject to subpoena, and their whereabouts are unknown.
About October 20, 2000, counsel for the defendants informed plaintiff's counsel by telephone and letter of its intention to move to dismiss the complaint "but as a courtesy, [we] will wait until the beginning of next week to do so."
Not having heard from plaintiff's counsel, on October 26, 2000, GTE, understandably, moved to dismiss the complaint on account of Myrick's failure to prosecute her claim.
The motion to dismiss is denied, not because the defendants were not justified in seeking such relief, but because of the extremity of such a solution. However, the denial of the motion to dismiss is conditioned on the following: (1) that the plaintiff promptly and diligently pursue her claim up to and including presentation to the arbitrator as soon as the matter can be heard, (2) that the defendant shall be free to move before the arbitrator to dismiss the claim on the grounds that the delay of the plaintiff in filing her claim has caused the plaintiff, now a dissolved corporation, to be unable to defend itself because of the unavailability of lack of control of witnesses.
The motion to dismiss is denied on the conditions stated.