Cavanaugh et al v. Woods Cross City et al

Filing 146

MEMORANDUM DECISION granting 144 Motion to Continue Trial. Parties are to submit a new proposed stipulated schedule to the court by 4/1/11. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells on 3/18/11 (alt)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, NORTHERN DIVISION SHANNON CAVANAUGH and BRAD CAVANAUGH, v. Plaintiffs, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL SET FOR APRIL 11-15, 2011 Case No. 1:08--cv-32 TC District Judge Tena Campbell Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells WOODS CROSS CITY, a Utah municipal corporation; DANIEL DAVIS, an individual, Defendants. Before the court is Plaintiffs' Motion to Continue Trial and Request for Scheduling Conference. 1 Plaintiffs seek expedited review because the trial in this case is set for April 11-15. Plaintiffs state that they "have just learned that an excessive force expert who they designated is currently hospitalized with a severe injury. At this time, he is unable to respond to requests for further information regarding his availability. He has indicated that the extent of his stay and rehabilitation are likely to be extensive and that he is likely to have little or no ability to communicate with us during this time." 2 Defendants do not oppose Plaintiffs' motion. Accordingly, for good cause shown, the court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion to Continue Trial. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the parties in this case are to confer with each other and submit a new proposed stipulated schedule with all necessary dates, including a date by which this case will be ready for trial, to the court by April 1, 2011. The court will then reschedule the 1 2 Docket no. 144. Mtn. p. 1-2. trial in this matter based upon the availability of Judge Campbell's schedule. All pending trial related deadlines and dates set forth in the current scheduling order are STRICKEN. DATED this 18 March 2011. Brooke C. Wells United States Magistrate Judge 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?