Maurer v. Independence Town

Filing 124

ORDER AND REASONS granting 114 MOTION to Continue Trial filed by Michael A. Ragusa. Signed by Chief Judge Sarah S. Vance on 8/21/15.(Reference: 13-5910)(jjs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
DAVID S. MAURER

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 13-5450

TOWN OF INDEPENDENCE, ET AL.

SECTION: R(5)

ORDER AND REASONS
Defendant Mayor Michael A. Ragusa moves to continue the trial
date currently set for September 21, 2015.1

For the following

reasons, the Court grants the motion.

I.

Background
On August 15, 2013, plaintiff David Maurer filed this section

1983 and state-law defamation suit after he was terminated from his
position as chief of the Independence Volunteer Fire Department
(the Volunteer Department).2

Maurer originally sued thirteen

defendants: the town of Independence and its mayor, Ragusa; the
Volunteer Department and five members of its board of directors-Jeremy Baham, Eric Anthony, Jonathan Tallo, Christopher McKinney,
and Anthony Parazzo; the Tangipahoa Parish Rural Fire Protection
District

Number

administrator

2

(the

Dennis

Fire

Crocker,

District),
and

two

the

Fire

members

of

District’s
the

Fire

District’s board of commissioners--Nicholas Muscarello and Carlo
Bruno; and the Tangipahoa Parish Government.

1

R. Doc. 114.

2

R. Doc. 1.

After two rounds of

motions to dismiss by all defendants, the remaining defendants are
Mayor Ragusa, the Fire District, Nicholas Muscarello, Carlo Bruno,
and Dennis Crocker.3

Maurer’s remaining claims are a state-law

defamation claim against Ragusa and a section 1983 due process
claim against the Fire District, Muscarello, Bruno, and Crocker.
On October 9, 2014, the Court scheduled trial in this matter
to begin on September 21, 2015.4

The Court also ordered that all

discovery be completed by August 4, 2015.

Mayor Ragusa now moves

the Court to continue trial on the ground that the parties have yet
to engage in meaningful discovery and that the parties could not
file

meaningful

dispositive

motions

by

the

Court’s

deadline.

Maurer opposes Mayor Ragusa’s motion to continue.

II.

Discussion
“A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the

judge’s consent.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).

Whether to grant or

deny a continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial
court.

United States v. Alix, 86 F.3d 429, 434 (5th Cir. 1996).

The court’s “judgment range is exceedingly wide” for it “must
consider not only the facts of the particular case but also all of
the demands on counsel’s time and the court’s.” Streber v. Hunter,
221 F.3d 701, 736 (5th Cir. 2000) (internal citation omitted).

3

R. Doc. 113 at 12 n.23.

4

R. Doc. 77 at 3.
2

The Court concludes that good cause exists to continue trial in
this matter.

The pre-trial time period was overwhelmed with

motions to dismiss, as well as a number of motions to amend or
reconsider.

The Court addressed the last of these motions on

July 7, 2015.5

The Court’s rulings greatly narrowed the number

of defendants in this case and the number of claims Maurer
asserts against them.

The Court also notes that Maurer recently

filed his first witness and exhibit list, which names seventeen
people Maurer may wish to call at trial and identifies numerous
exhibits.

Indeed, Maurer’s seventy-page Second Amended Complaint

is fact intensive, meaning proper discovery will likely take
additional time.

See Voggenthaler v. Md. Square, LLC, No. 2:08-

cv-01618-RCJ-GWF, 2010 WL 1553417, at *7 (D. Nev. Apr. 14, 2010)
(noting that complex issues warrant additional discovery and a
continuance).

Accordingly, the Court finds good cause to

continue trial exists, and the Court grants the motion.

III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Mayor Ragusa’s
Motion to Continue Trial.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _______ day of August, 2015.
21st

___________________________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5

See R. Doc. 113.
3