to be aware of statutory deadlines and dismissal provisions.” Brief for appellant at 12. This contention is simply untrue. Roemer was represented by capable counsel. This court has repeatedly held that notice to the counsel of record constitutes notice to the party represented by such counsel. Emry, supra. Regardless of whether represented by counsel, the plaintiff — not the court, not opposing counsel — bears responsibility to prosecute the case with reasonable diligence. See Schaeffer, supra. A litigant has a duty to follow the progress of the case, rather than to merely assume that counsel is doing everything necessary and proper. City National Bank v. Langley, 161 Ill. App. 3d 266, 514 N.E.2d 508 (1987). See, also, Minkin v. Levander, 186 Cal. App. 3d 64, 230 Cal. Rptr. 592 (1986) (<HOLDING>).' The pattern of delay refutes the claim that
holding the duty to indemnify is narrower than the duty to defend holding that missouri law applied to the plaintiffs breach of fiduciary duty claim because it is corporate law that defines the contours of that duty holding that the duty of good faith and fair dealing is a contractual duty holding where there is no duty to defend there is no duty to indemnify holding that specific duty to keep track of calendar and pertinent dates crucial to maintenance of lawsuit is central to plaintiffs general duty to expedite resolution of plaintiffs case