Boardwalk Apartments, L.C. v. State Auto Property and Casualty Insurance Co.

Filing 245

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 242 Motion to Continue. The Trial is reset for 6/24/2014 at 09:00 AM in KC Courtroom before District Judge Julie A. Robinson. Signed by District Judge Julie A. Robinson on 1/8/2014. (ms)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
STATE AUTO PROPERTY AND
)
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
)
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)
BOARDWALK APARTMENTS, L.C.,

Case No. 11-2714-JAR-KMH

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant State Auto Property and Casualty Insurance Company’s
Motion to Continue Trial (Doc. 242). Plaintiff has responded and opposes the motion. As
described more fully below, the Court grants State Auto’s motion to continue the trial date in this
matter by one week.
This is an insurance dispute that was set for trial on June 16, 2014, a setting prompted by
the parties’ July 2013 motion for an extension of the dispositive motions deadline. Judge
Humphreys conferred with the parties in advance of ruling on that motion and asked for their
availability on June 16, 2014. Mr. Cockerham, counsel for State Auto, advised the court of a
conflict on June 16 and June 23, 2014. Judge Humphreys determined that it was unnecessary at
that time to continue the trial date and noted that the parties could seek a continuance if Mr.
Cockerham’s conflicts could not be resolved closer to that trial date. State Auto’s instant motion
to continue trial is based on the same conflict with Mr. Cockerham’s schedule first raised with
Judge Humphreys, on June 18 up and through June 21, 2014. Boardwalk Apartments, LLC, has
responded and opposes moving the trial date, arguing that State Auto has been on notice of the

trial date and that counsel has a duty to accommodate the Court’s setting.
It is within the Court’s sound discretion whether to grant a motion to continue.1 The
Court considers the following relevant factors:
“the diligence of the party requesting the continuance; the
likelihood that the continuance, if granted, would accomplish the
purpose underlying the party’s expressed need for the continuance;
the inconvenience to the opposing party, its witnesses, and the
court resulting from the continuance; the need asserted for the
continuance and the harm that appellant might suffer as a result of
the district court's denial of the continuance. . . . No single factor
is determinative and the weight given to any one may vary
depending on the extent of the appellant’s showing on the others.”2
The Court has considered the above factors and finds that a trial continuance should be granted.
State Auto raised this conflict in July, before the court set the trial for June 16, 2014. State
Auto’s conflict did not resolve itself since that time, so it properly sought a limited continuance.
The Court can accommodate this conflict and shall reschedule the trial for June 24, 2014.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that Defendant State Auto
Property and Casualty Insurance Company’s Motion to Continue Trial (Doc. 242) is granted.
Trial is continued to June 24, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. in Kansas City, Kansas.
Dated: January 8, 2014
S/ Julie A. Robinson
JULIE A. ROBINSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

Rogers v. Andrus Transp. Servs., 502 F.3d 1147, 1151 (10th Cir. 2007).

2

Id. (quoting United States v. West, 828 F.2d 1468, 1469 (10th Cir. 1987)).

2