Vazquez-Kailey v. Shah et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Trial Continuance (ECF No. 45 ) is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on July 5, 2017. (BRP)
UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
VIKRAM SHAH and MIKE KAILEY, d/b/a
KAILEY TRUCK LINE,
No. 4:15-CV-467 RLW
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Trial Continuance (ECF No. 45). Defense
counsel states that it has a conflict with the March 5, 2018 trial setting because he is set for trial
in Colton v. Price Industries One, Inc. St. Louis County Circuit Court, Cause No. 15SL-CC00337. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has listed five factors that a district court should
balance when considering whether to grant or deny a motion for continuance: (1) the nature of
the case; (2) the diligence of the party requesting the continuance; (3) the opposing party's
conduct; (4) the effect of the delay on both parties; (5) and the asserted need for the continuance.
United States v. Pruett, 788 F.2d 1396, 1396 (8th Cir. 1986) (citing United States v. Bernhardt,
642 F.2d 251, 252 (8th Cir. 1981)); 391 Franklin Tpk. Ltd. Liab. Co. v. Tank, No. 4:12-CV-162,
2014 WL 12605491, at* 1 (D.N.D. Oct. 22, 2014). The district court has wide discretion to grant
or deny a motion for a continuance. Id.
After carefully considering all of the above-outlined factors, the Court finds that a
continuance is neither necessary nor appropriate under the circumstances. This case has been
pending for close to three (3) years and needs to be resolved. Counsel can find another attorney
in his firm to try one of these cases or request a continuance of the trial date from the St. Louis
County Circuit Court.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Trial Continuance (ECF No.
45) is DENIED.
Dated this 5th day of July, 2017.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?