Massey v. Ebix, No. 2:2014cv00897 - Document 38 (D. Utah 2016)
Court Description: 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)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Massey v. Ebix Doc. 38 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 Motion to Continue Final Pretrial Conference and Bench Trial, docket no. 29, filed July 1, 2016. 2 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)). Dockets.Justia.com 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
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
