Guitron et al v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 148

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING IN PART 143 MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/7/2012)

Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 YESENIA GUITRON; and JUDI KLOSEK, 5 6 7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 No. C 10-3461 CW Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL (Docket No. 143) v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; WELLS FARGO & CO.; PAM RUBIO; and DOES 1-20, Defendants. ________________________________/ Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. moves to continue the trial date in this case from February 11, 2013 until July 15, 2013, or in the alternative, until April 1, 2013. Defendant contends that the continuance is necessary because one of its witnesses, its employee Hale Walker, is currently pregnant and is anticipated to be on leave from January 2013. Plaintiffs Yesenia Guitron and Judi Klosek oppose a long continuance, but do not oppose a shorter continuance until March 2012. Plaintiff Klosek has not stated that she is unavailable for trial during early April 2013. Having considered the papers submitted by the parties, the Court GRANTS the motion in part. The five-day jury trial is CONTINUED to Tuesday, April 2, 2013 at 8:30 a.m. The final pretrial conference is CONTINUED to Wednesday, March 20, 2013 at 2:00 p.m. Although the Court continues the trial, the Court notes that Defendant’s proffered proof of Ms. Walker’s unavailability is deficient. Defendant is primarily concerned that, by issuing a subpoena for Ms. Walker during the time she is on leave, it might 1 be liable for interference with her statutorily-protected family 2 leave. 3 Further, Defendant has provided no evidence of the duration of 4 leave that Ms. Walker intends to take, that it has discussed this 5 issue with Ms. Walker or that it has tried to establish a leave 6 schedule with her that would accommodate her testimony. 7 However, the Court, not Defendant, will subpoena her. Defendant’s evidence of its counsel’s unavailability is also 8 deficient. 9 currently is scheduled to be in trial in other actions in March, Defendant has stated that its “lead trial counsel United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 April, May and June.” 11 provided any specific dates during which its counsel is scheduled 12 to be in trial in those months, although Defendant has suggested 13 setting trial in this matter for the week of April 1, 2013. 14 Mot. at 4. Defendant, however, has not IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 17 Dated: 12/7/2012 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?