Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02001/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02001-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Robert E. LISS and Zoe LISS, 

Plaintiffs, 

v.

EXEL TRANSPORTATION SERVICES,

INC. et al., 

Defendants. 

EXEL TRANSPORTATION SERVICES,

INC.,

Counterclaimant,

v.

Robert E. LISS and Zoe LISS,

Counterdefendants. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV-04-2001-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Pending before the Court are a variety of motions filed by Plaintiff/Counterdefendant

Robert E. Liss ("Liss"). On April 16, 2007, Liss filed a Motion for Continuance, twice, (Dkts.

217, 219) and a Motion for Expedited Ruling on Motion for Continuance of Pretrial Deadlines,

twice (Dkts. 218, 220). Because the second version of each motion also contained a proposed

order as required by LRCiv 7.3, the Court will address only these motions (Dkts. 219, 220) and

deny the initial filings (Dkts. 217, 218). Defendant/Counterclaimants Exel Transportation

Services Inc. ("Exel") promptly filed an Opposition to Motion for Continuance. (Dkt. 222)

Case 2:04-cv-02001-SMM Document 224 Filed 04/20/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

DISCUSSION

Liss requests the Court to continue the pretrial deadlines imposed by the Order Re: Final

Pretrial Conference (Dkt. 214) so that he may retain alternate counsel in this case. According

to Liss, he seeks additional time to retain trial counsel for this case since his current attorney,

Guadalupe Iniguez, primarily practices in the area of trusts and estates. Liss states that he has

been trying unsuccessfully to retain "alternate legal counsel to try the case" since January 23,

2007. (Dkt. 219 at 3). Accompanying Liss's motion is the affidavit of Ms. Iniguez, which states

that "[she] is not in a position to prepare and try this case." (Id. at 5) 

Exel opposes Liss's motion for continuance by arguing that Liss has had ample time to

retain counsel over the past three months and that there "is absolutely no reason to give Mr. Liss

yet another 90 days ....to retain counsel." (Dkt. 222 at 2) In addition, Exel argues that Liss

already has counsel, that Liss's counsel is responsible for all aspects of this case pursuant to

LRCiv. 83.3(a) and that Exel has had the same amount of time as Liss's current counsel to

comply with the Court's current deadlines." (Id. at 3-7) Finally, Exel claims that any delay of

the trial will prejudice them as their witnesses memories will fade and additional attorneys' fees

will accrue. (Id. at 7) 

The Court finds Ms. Iniguez's circumstances persuasive given her recent entry into the

case. Moreover, she is actively assisting Plaintiff in attempting to secure trial counsel.

Therefore, the Court will grant Liss a 90-day continuance so that he may retain alternate

counsel. The Court finds that a 90-day continuance will not prejudice Exel as the additional is

not significant enough to affect the memory of Exel's witnesses. Moreover, since Exel has

apparently completed most of the work necessary to prepare this case for trial, the Court finds

no reason why they should have to incur additional attorneys' fees. Plaintiff is cautioned,

however, that no further continuances will be granted unless good cause is shown. 

//

//

//

Case 2:04-cv-02001-SMM Document 224 Filed 04/20/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Liss' first Motion for Continuance (Dkt. 217) and first Motion for

Expedited Ruling on Motion for Continuance of Pretrial Deadlines (Dkt. 218) are DENIED as

moot. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Liss' Motion for Continuance (Dkt. 219) and Motion

for Expedited Ruling on Motion for Continuance of Pretrial Deadlines (Dkt. 220) are

GRANTED. The deadlines set by the Court's Order Re: Final Pretrial Conference (Dkt. 214)

shall be altered as follows:

Proposed Pretrial Order shall be submitted no later than August 17, 2007. 

Motions in Limine shall be filed and served no later than August 17, 2007.

Responses to motions in limine due by August 24, 2007. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Final Pretrial Conference set for June 6, 2007

has been VACATED. The Court has rescheduled the Final Pretrial Conference for September

10, 2007 at 4:00 p.m. in Courtroom 605 before the Honorable Stephen M. McNamee. No

further extensions shall be granted without a showing of good cause.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all of the provisions of this Court's April 3, 2007

Order Re: Final Pretrial Conference (Dkt. 214), except the dates changed above, remain in full

force and effect. The parties are directed to review the Order Re: Final Pretrial Conference

(Dkt. 214) as it contains other important information relating to the preparation of this case for

trial. 

DATED this 19th day of April, 2007.

Case 2:04-cv-02001-SMM Document 224 Filed 04/20/07 Page 3 of 3