The Plaintiff applied for an Order setting the matter for Trial, and the Defendant cross-applied for an Order dismissing the Action for delay pursuant to Rule 4.33. Master Schulz first considered whether a significant advance in the Action had occurred within a three year period. Although there was an Appointment for Questioning filed and several requests by Plaintiff’s counsel requesting the matter be set for Trial, these were not significant enough to advance the Action. Master Schulz cited the authorities for delay and stated that simple requests to set down the matter for Trial were not sufficient to qualify as a significant advance. Master Schulz noted that had Questioning occurred, it would have been a significant advance. The Action was dismissed for delay.