must be made on a case-by-case basis, considering the complexities and facts presented to the situation at hand. There is no one-size-fits-all answer to the question. Courts have looked to various factors in making this determination, including evidence of the receiver’s bad faith, prejudice to the nonrepudiating party caused by the delay, and whether delay was needless or stemmed from legitimate reasons. See New Hampshire Associates Ltd. P’ship v. F.D.I.C., 978 F.Supp. 650, 654 (D.Md.1997) (“Although reasonableness is to be determined on the facts of each case ... a number of courts have held on summary judgment that periods of ninety days or more were reasonable, at least absent evidence of bad faith by the RTC, or prejudice to the lessor.”); and CedarMinn, 956 F.2d at 1454-55 (<HOLDING>). Here, the question is not nearly as close as
holding repudiation timely where the rtcs 24day delay did not prejudice plaintiff holding that when determining whether a delay in prosecution violates a defendants right to a speedy trial courts must consider the length of the delay the reason for the delay whether the defendant asserted his rights and the resulting prejudice to the defendant holding that prescription delay was not violation because plaintiff could not establish detrimental effect of delay in treatment holding that a twoyear delay did not bar the motion where there was no demonstration of unfair prejudice holding that the district courts decision to delay jury instructions and deliberations did not warrant a presumption of prejudice