James Devanney v. Denise Pratt (2013)

RULING RE DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE

This matter has been continued on multiple occasions, but was most recently scheduled to go to trial on December 4, 2013.   The defendant retained new counsel on multiple occasions, and her current counsel recently requested a postponement of the trial to December 5, 2013, due in part to her workload on another matter that was being tried in another court.   She represented that she would file her compliance with the court's standing trial management order (“TMO”) no later than December 2, 2013.

The defendant did not file her compliance with the TMO on December 2, 2013.   On December 3, 2013, the plaintiff moved for sanctions for defendant's failure to comply with the TMO. On December 4, 2013, the defendant filed a motion to continue the trial on the basis of defendant's counsel's medical incapacitation.   She attached a doctor's note to her motion.   That note indicated that defendant's counsel should not be at work for the next two weeks.   Further, and in that same motion, the defendant opposed the plaintiff's motion for sanctions.   Shortly thereafter, also on December 4, 2013, the defendant filed her compliance with the TMO.

On December 4, 2013, at 3:00 p.m., the court and the parties participated in a conference call relative to the motion for continuance.   The defendant's counsel was herself represented by counsel, Vincent DeAngelo, Esq., in that conference call.   After hearing the positions of both parties, and over the plaintiff's objection, the court granted the motion for a continuance.   The court directed both parties to identify three separate dates on which this matter can be tried in January 2014, and to thereafter advise the clerk of the court with regard to those dates.   That report must be provided to the clerk of the court no later than December 11, 2013.   The court will thereafter determine which of those dates is compatible with its schedule and a new trial date will be set.

The court will not address the plaintiff's motions for sanctions until the defendant has a reasonable opportunity to prepare a more detailed response to the motion, should she wish to do so.   The court invited the plaintiff to determine whether this continuance has caused expense to the plaintiff and to advise the court, should he wish to do so, as to the nature of such expense.   The court will consider any such submission, together with any other submissions that either party believes is appropriate, when the motion for sanctions is heard in January 2014.

So ordered.

John A. Danaher, III, J.

Danaher, John A., J.