SE Property Holdings, LLC v. Braswell et al
Order granting 134 MOTION to Continue Trial. Pretrial Conference is continued to 1/9/2018 03:30 p.m. Jury Selection is set for 1/30/2018. Trial will be set during the month of February 2018. Signed by District Judge William H. Steele on 10/16/17. (tgw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SE PROPERTY HOLDINGS, LLC,
GEORGE S. BRASWELL, et al.,
CIVIL ACTION 13-0267-WS-N
This matter comes before the Court on defendants’ Motion to Continue Trial (doc. 134).
Both parties have filed responses setting forth their positions on the Motion, and updating the
Court as to recent events potentially impacting same. (Docs. 137 & 138.)1
As grounds for the Motion to Continue, defendants correctly observe that the status of
these fraudulent transfer proceedings could be dramatically affected by related proceedings in the
so-called Bama Bayou action pending in Mobile County Circuit Court. In particular, the
imminent disposition of pending cross-motions for summary judgment in Bama Bayou could
either directly or indirectly obviate the need for a trial in this fraudulent transfer action. If
George Braswell prevails on summary judgment in Bama Bayou, then the parties agree that
SEPH’s fraudulent transfer claims against him must be dismissed. By contrast, if SEPH prevails
on summary judgment in Bama Bayou, that ruling could alter the landscape drastically and
prompt all parties to reconsider their intransigence and unwillingness to compromise. In either
Upon defendants’ filing of the Motion to Continue on October 4, 2017, the
undersigned entered an endorsement carrying the Motion to the Final Pretrial Conference, which
is slated for October 17, 2017 at 10:30 a.m. (Doc. 135.) Based on the written responses
submitted by both sides earlier today, however, the Court now has all the information needed to
resolve the Motion, such that it would not be beneficial to hear further argument from the parties
on this issue at the Final Pretrial Conference.
of these scenarios, a jury trial in this case would prove both unnecessary and unhelpful,
amounting to little more than a pointless drain on judicial, juror and litigant resources.2
SEPH’s strongest argument against granting a continuance here is that “[t]here is … no
way of knowing when there will be a ruling on the motions for summary judgment” in Bama
Bayou. (Doc. 137, at 2.) That argument might have resonated if the status quo were as reflected
in the Bama Bayou hearing transcript dated September 22, 2017, in which SEPH obtained
permission to pursue an investigation of a potential conflict of interest involving Judge Stewart
and the earliest hearing date on the summary judgment motions appeared to be late January
2018. (Doc. 134, Exh. A.) But the Bama Bayou decision timetable has crystallized considerably
in the interim. On October 6, 2017, Judge Stewart entered an Order concluding that SEPH’s outof-state counsel “had and have no reasonable good faith basis for purs[u]ing” allegations of
unethical conduct against her, and resetting the summary judgment hearing for October 27, 2017.
(Doc. 138, Exh. A.) The October 6 Order emphatically states that “[n]o continuances will be
granted.” (Id.) In light of this development, the Court strongly suspects that a Bama Bayou
ruling will be forthcoming shortly, in all likelihood before the end of this calendar year.
Given the high probability of a resolution in Bama Bayou in the relatively near term, and
given the potential for such a resolution either directly or indirectly to eliminate the need for a
jury trial in our case, it would be an unwise, inefficient and potentially wasteful use of judicial,
litigant and juror resources to force this case to proceed to jury trial in the November 2017 civil
term. Accordingly, defendants’ Motion to Continue Trial (doc. 134) is granted. The Final
Pretrial Conference is continued to January 9, 2018 at 3:30 p.m., with jury selection to follow
on January 30, 2018. This case will be tried during the February 2018 civil term.
DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of October, 2017.
s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
It is possible, of course, that all cross-motions in Bama Bayou might be denied;
however, Judge Stewart has already indicated on the record her assessment that “it doesn’t
appear that there are any factual issues in dispute.” (Doc. 134, Exh. A at 5.) Thus, it appears
highly unlikely that the outcome of the cross-motions in Bama Bayou will be a dearth of any
final rulings on case-dispositive issues.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?