Massey v. Ebix
Filing
38
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting 29 Motion to Continue; Final Pretrial Conference reset for 9/8/2016 at 03:30 PM in Rm 3.100 before Judge David Nuffer; 1-Day Bench Trial reset for 9/19/2016 at 08:30 AM in Rm 3.100 before Judge David Nuffer. Signed by Judge David Nuffer on 7/22/16 (alt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
DOUG MASSEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
CONTINUE FINAL PRETRIAL AND
TRIAL
EBIX, INC. a Delaware corporation,
Case No. 2:14-cv-00897-DN
Defendant.
District Judge David Nuffer
Defendant moves for a continuance of the final pretrial conference and one-day bench
trial (“Motion”). 1 For the reasons discussed below, the Motion is hereby GRANTED.
The following factors are considered when deciding a motion to continue trial:
[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; [4] the need asserted
for the continuance and the harm that [movant] might suffer as a result of the
district court's denial of the continuance. 2
First, it appears the Defendant was diligent in contacting Plaintiff’s counsel the same day
it received a letter from a district court in Texas informing them that their two-week jury trial in
Texas was rescheduled to start August 23, 2016. Second, a short continuance would allow
Defendant’s counsel to conduct the two-week jury trial in Texas and then have sufficient time to
prepare for a one day bench trial in this case. Third, it does not appear that Plaintiff will suffer
1
2
Motion to Continue Final Pretrial Conference and Bench Trial, docket no. 29, filed July 1, 2016.
Rogers v. Andrus Transp. Servs., 502 F.3d 1147, 1151 (10th Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. West, 828 F.2d
1468, 1470 (10th Cir. 1987)).
much inconvenience with a short two week continuance. 3 Plaintiff contends that Defendant, a
publicly traded company, “has made offers of cash and stock to purchase other companies, and
has announced its intent to conduct a reverse stock split and to borrow additional funds, each of
which could adversely affect the value of any stock or other damages which may be awarded to
plaintiff in this litigation.” 4 Without more information, this contention seems speculative.
Finally, denying the continuance would be prejudicial to Defendant who would either proceed
with a less experienced attorney from its counsel’s firm, or would have to find new
representation less than six weeks from trial. The above factors weigh in favor of granting a short
two-week continuance
Accordingly, the Motion 5 is GRANTED. The final pretrial conference is continued to
September 8, 2016 at 3:30 p.m. and the one-day bench trial is continued to September 19, 2016.
Dated July 22, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
____________________________
David Nuffer
United States District Judge
3
See Declaration of Michael Smith in Opposition to Ebix’s Motion to Continue Final Pretrial Conference and Bench
Trial, docket no. 30, filed July 1, 2016.
4
Id. at 1-2.
5
Docket no. 29.
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?