Hermann v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Company

Filing 96

ORDER granting 94 , 95 Motions to Continue Trial. The Trial Preparation Conference set 7/12/2013, at 1:30 p.m., and the trial set to begin 7/29/2013, are VACATED. The Second Trial Preparation Conference Order [# 87 ] entered12/17/2012, is AMENDED and SUPPLEMENTED accordingly. Pending resolution of the plaintiff's bankruptcy proceedings, under D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2, this action is CLOSED ADMINISTRATIVELY. All other pending motions, including those docketed as [# 65 , # 67 , # 68 , # 90 , and # 91 ] are DENIED as moot, subject to renewal once this case is reopened for good cause. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 7/9/2013. (klyon, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 11-cv-03188-REB-MEH
JOHN HERMANN,
Plaintiff,
v.
HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO CONTINUE TRIAL
Blackburn, J.
This matter is before me on the following: (1) Unopposed Motion of Hartford
Casualty Insurance Company To Continue Trial and Related Deadlines [#94]1 filed
June 5, 2013; and (2) Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Continue Trial Date and
Pretrial Deadlines Due to the Physical Disability of Plaintiff’s Counsel [#95] filed
July 8, 2013. Both motions are unopposed and are granted.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has outlined four
primary factors that should be considered to determine if a continuance of trial is
necessary. See, e.g., Morrison Knudsen Corp. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co.,175 F.3d
1221, 1230 (10th Cir. 1999) (citing U.S. v. West, 828 F.2d 1468, 1469 (10th Cir. 1987)
(listing factors)). The key relevant factors are

1

“[#94]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a
specific paper by the court’s electronic case filing and management system (CM/ECF). I use this
convention throughout this order.

(1) the diligence of the party requesting the continuance; (2) the likelihood
that the continuance, if granted, would accomplish the purpose underlying
the party’s expressed need for the continuance; (3) the inconvenience to
the opposing party, its witnesses, and the court resulting from the
continuance; [and] (4) the need asserted for the continuance and the harm
that [movant] might suffer as result of the district court’s denial of the
continuance.
United States v. Rivera, 900 F.2d 1462, 1475 (10th Cir. 1990) (quoting United States
v. West, 828 F.2d 1468, 1470 (10th Cir. 1987)). The defendant’s motion addresses
these factors and describes specific facts in this case relevant to the West factors. The
plaintiff’s motion does not address the West factors. However, given the
uncontroverted facts averred in both motions, I conclude that a continuance is
warranted.
Currently, the plaintiff, John Hermann, is preparing to file amended schedules in
his bankruptcy proceeding. It is apparent that he will list his claim in this case as an
asset subject to administration by the bankruptcy court. The bankruptcy trustee has not
yet determined whether he or she will abandon the claim asserted in this case or ratify,
join, or ask to be substituted into this action. In addition, Mr. Hermann’s sole counsel
currently is suffering from a medical condition that will prohibit him from representing Mr.
Hermann at trial.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the Unopposed Motion of Hartford Casualty Insurance Company To
Continue Trial and Related Deadlines [#94] filed June 5, 2013, is GRANTED;
2. That the Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Continue Trial Date and Pretrial
Deadlines Due to the Physical Disability of Plaintiff’s Counsel [#95] filed July 8,
2013, is GRANTED;
3. That the Trial Preparation Conference set July 12, 2013, at 1:30 p.m., and the
2

trial set to begin July 29, 2013, are VACATED;
4. That the Second Trial Preparation Conference Order [#87] entered
December 17, 2012, is AMENDED and SUPPLEMENTED accordingly;
5. That pending resolution of the plaintiff’s bankruptcy proceedings, under
D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2, this action is CLOSED ADMINISTRATIVELY;
6. That under D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2, the clerk is DIRECTED to close this civil
action administratively, subject to reopening for good cause;
7. That all other pending motions, including those docketed as [#65, #67, #68,
#90, and #91] are DENIED as moot, subject to renewal once this case is reopened for
good cause;
8. That after this case is reopened, any such motion may be renewed by the
moving party by filing a brief notice indicating the title and docket number of the motion
the moving party seeks to renew;
9. That if a motion is so renewed, any response and reply previously filed shall
be considered to be applicable to the renewed motion.
Dated July 9, 2013, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

3