Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00122/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00122-13/pdf.json

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

---

-1- CASE NO. 2:05-cv-00122-MCE-GGH 

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 

 

SEDGWICK, DETERT, MORAN & ARNOLD LLP 

JAMES P. DIWIK (Bar No. 164016) 

CHRISTOPHER A. NEDEAU (Bar No. 081279) 

JOEL M. LONG (Bar No. 226061) 

One Market Plaza 

Steuart Tower, 8th Floor 

San Francisco, California 94105 

Telephone: (415) 781-7900 

Facsimile: (415) 781-2635 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company 

and American Motorists Insurance Company 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

Plaintiffs American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company and American Motorists 

Insurance Company, pursuant to Local Rule 6-144(e), submit this ex parte application to 

continue the currently scheduled January 28, 2008 trial date for at least 30 days based on the 

unanticipated unavailability of trial counsel, Christopher A. Nedeau, Esq. Plaintiffs have met 

and conferred with defendants in an attempt to obtain a stipulated continuance, but defendants 

have refused to stipulate. This ex parte application follows, with plaintiffs seeking ex parte 

relief, as opposed to filing a noticed motion, due to the fact that the trial date is less than three 

weeks away. 

AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS 

MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, et 

al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CAROTHERS CONSTRUCTION, INC., 

et al., 

Defendants. 

 CASE NO. 2:05-cv-00122-MCE-GGH 

EX PARTE APPLICATION TO 

CONTINUE TRIAL BASED ON TRIAL 

COUNSEL UNAVAILABILITY; 

ORDER THEREON 

Date: TBD 

Time: TBD 

Location: Courtroom No. 3, 15th Floor 

Judge: Hon. Morrison C. England, Jr. 

Trial Date: January 28, 2008 

 

Case 2:05-cv-00122-MCE-KJN Document 235 Filed 01/15/08 Page 1 of 6
 -2- CASE NO. 2:05-cv-00122-MCE-GGH 

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 

 

I. RELEVANT FACTS1

A. Mr. Nedeau’s Unavailability

Mr. Nedeau an experienced trial attorney and a partner with the law firm of Sedgwick, 

Detert, Moran & Arnold LLP (“Sedgwick”). (Declaration of Christopher A. Nedeau in Support 

of Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application to Trial (“Nedeau Dec.”) at 1:21-24, 2:4-7.) Prior to joining 

Sedgwick, Mr. Nedeau served as an Assistant District Attorney for the City and County of San 

Francisco and a Special Assistant United States Attorney for the Department of Justice on the 

Organized Crime and Racketeering Strike Force. (Nedeau Dec. at 2:4-6.) Mr. Nedeau has tried 

approximately 100 criminal and civil cases to verdict. (Nedeau Dec. at 2:7.) 

Mr. Nedeau became involved in the instant case in July 2007 for the specific purpose of 

conducting the jury trial on plaintiffs’ behalf. (Nedeau Dec. at 2:8-9.) Mr. Nedeau was available 

to, and planned to, try the case on previous but later vacated trial dates in this matter, including 

August 20, 2007, and October 28, 2007.2

 (Nedeau Dec. at 2:10-11.) 

Mr. Nedeau expected that he would be available to try the case as scheduled on January 

28, 2008, and has prepared accordingly. (Nedeau Dec. at 2:12-16) Mr. Nedeau was scheduled 

to have a right hip arthroplasty revision on December 18, 2007, and based on his experience with 

several prior orthopedic surgeries, expected that he would be sufficiently recovered to resume 

courtroom activity, including trial work, by late January 2008. (Nedeau Dec. at 2:17-19.) Thus, 

plaintiffs did not seek a continuance of the January 28, 2008 trial date in December 2007 or 

prior. (Nedeau Dec. at 2:20-21.) 

However, in light of the condition of Mr. Nedeau’s hip revealed during the surgery, the 

extensive work required to repair the hip at that time, and post-operative evaluation of Mr. 

Nedeau and his recovery, Mr. Nedeau’s surgeon, Miguel E. Cabanela, M.D. of the Mayo Clinic 

in Rochester, Minnesota, now believes that Mr. Nedeau should refrain from any courtroom 

 1

 The facts above are supported by the declarations of Christopher A. Nedeau and Miguel E. 

Cabanela, M.D. filed concurrently herewith. 2

 The October 22, 2007 trial date, which was set by the Court on its own motion, was 

continued at plaintiffs’ request due to the unavailability of plaintiffs’ client representative and 

key witness, Stephen Beatty. 

Case 2:05-cv-00122-MCE-KJN Document 235 Filed 01/15/08 Page 2 of 6
 -3- CASE NO. 2:05-cv-00122-MCE-GGH 

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 

 

activity, including trying cases, for a minimum period of eight weeks after the surgery, which 

took place on December 20, 2007. (Nedeau Dec. at 2:26-28, 3:1; Declaration of Miguel E. 

Cabanela, M.D. in Support of Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application to Trial (“Cabanela Dec.”) at 2:4-

9.) Were Mr. Nedeau to do otherwise, Dr. Cabanela believes that it would jeopardize the 

effectiveness of the surgical repair to his hip, delay his recovery, or both. (Nedeau Dec. at 3:2-3; 

Cabanela Dec. at 2:10-11.) Dr. Cabanela has advised Mr. Nedeau of these matters and directed 

him to refrain from any courtroom activity, including trying cases, for a minimum period of eight 

weeks after the surgery. (Cabanela Dec. at 2:12-14.) 

In light of Dr. Cabanela’s direction, Mr. Nedeau is not available to try this case as 

planned on January 28, 2008. (Nedeau Dec. at 3:4-6.) However, he anticipates being available 

for trial in late February or early March 2008 and continuing thereafter. (Id.) 

The only other scheduled date on the Court’s pretrial calendar is the January 25, 2008 

hearing on the parties’ motions in limine. Plaintiffs are prepared to proceed with that hearing as 

scheduled.3

B. Meet and Confer Attempts

On the morning of January 9, 2008, Mr. Nedeau contacted defendants’ counsel, John 

Cassinat, by telephone to explain the circumstances surrounding Mr. Nedeau’s surgery and 

request that defendants stipulate to the continuance requested in this motion based on Mr. 

Nedeau’s unanticipated unavailability. (Nedeau Dec. at 3:7-9.) Mr. Cassinat indicated that he 

would consult with his client, but that he did not believe that his client would agree to a 

continuance. Mr. Nedeau requested that Mr. Cassinat confer with his client and confirm 

defendants’ position. Subsequently, Mr. Cassinat confirmed defendants’ refusal to stipulate. 

(Nedeau Dec. at 3:10-13.) 

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On May 22, 2007, the Court scheduled the trial of this matter for August 22, 2007. On 

 3

 Mr. Nedeau is working in the office part-time following his surgery and is prepared to 

attend the January 25, 2008 motion in limine hearing telephonically, if not in person. This 

motion is made in light of the rigors of a multiple-day jury trial, as opposed to a single motion 

hearing. 

Case 2:05-cv-00122-MCE-KJN Document 235 Filed 01/15/08 Page 3 of 6
 -4- CASE NO. 2:05-cv-00122-MCE-GGH 

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 

 

June 11, 2007, the Court issued its Amended Final Pretrial Order in preparation for the August 

22, 2007 trial. This order provides for a 15-court day jury trial. On August 6, 2007, due to the 

unavailability of the Court’s calendar and on the Court’s motion, the Court issued a Minute 

Order continuing the August 20, 2007 trial to October 22, 2007. On September 19, 2007, the 

Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to continue the October 22, 2007 trial based on the 

unavailability of plaintiffs’ client representative and key witness, Stephen Beatty. By separate 

Minute Order of the same date, the Court rescheduled the trial for January 28, 2008. 

III. ARGUMENT AND CITATION OF LEGAL AUTHORITY

Trial courts have broad discretion to grant trial continuances. Danjaq LLC v. Sony 

Corp., 263 F.3d 942, 961 (9th Cir. 2001); U.S. v. Flynt, 756 F.2d 1352, 1358 (9th Cir. 1985). In 

considering requests for trial continuances, courts generally examine four factors: (1) the 

moving party’s diligence in preparing its case for trial, (2) usefulness of the continuance, (3) 

inconvenience to the Court and the opposing party, and (4) prejudice to the moving party. See

id. Here, all four factors support a brief trial continuance. 

First, plaintiffs have diligently prosecuted their case, including conducting discovery, 

seeking writs of attachment, attempting settlement, including mediation, filing dispositive 

motions after settlement efforts were unsuccessful (through which plaintiffs obtained a 

determination of defendants’ liability), and submitting required pretrial filings. 

Second, a continuance is useful because it will permit plaintiffs’ designated trial counsel, 

who has spent significant time preparing for trial, try the case as planned. 

Third, the short continuance sought by plaintiffs is little, if any, inconvenience to 

defendants and, assuming sufficient space on its calendar, to the Court as well. In this regard, 

plaintiffs have promptly moved for a continuance once it was determined by Mr. Nedeau’s 

surgeon that Mr. Nedeau should refrain from courtroom work, including trials, for a minimum of 

eight weeks following his surgery to ensure proper recovery. 

Fourth, and most importantly, plaintiffs will be severely prejudiced without a 

continuance. Mr. Nedeau became involved in this case for the specific purpose of conducting 

the jury trial on plaintiffs’ behalf. Mr. Nedeau has prepared as if the trial was going forward on 

Case 2:05-cv-00122-MCE-KJN Document 235 Filed 01/15/08 Page 4 of 6
 -5- CASE NO. 2:05-cv-00122-MCE-GGH 

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 

 

January 28, 2008. But for his unanticipated medical disability, Mr. Nedeau would be ready to 

try the case on that date, as planned. 

IV. DETERMINATION OF PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR A CONTINUANCE ON 

 AN EX PARTE BASIS IS APPROPRIATE

In order for the Court to grant an ex parte request, Local Rule 6-144(e) requires an 

affidavit from the moving party’s counsel showing a satisfactory explanation for (1) the need for 

ex parte relief, and (2) the failure of counsel to obtain a stipulation to the relief requested. Here, 

these requirements are satisfied by Mr. Nedeau’s declaration discussing his unexpected 

unavailability for trial and his unsuccessful attempt to obtain a stipulated continuance from 

defendants’ counsel. 

Plaintiffs submit that their request for a continuance is appropriate for immediate 

determination by the Court without further briefing or a hearing. If the Court wishes to have full 

briefing and a hearing, however, then plaintiffs suggest the following schedule: 

• Deadline for defendants to file and serve an opposition to plaintiffs’ ex parte 

application – Tuesday, January 15, 2008; and 

• Hearing on plaintiffs’ application – Wednesday, January 16, 2008, at 9:00 a.m. 

Plaintiffs will reserve their reply, if any, for the time of the hearing. 

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court continue 

the January 28, 2008 trial for at least 30 days. 

DATED: January 10, 2008 SEDGWICK, DETERT, MORAN & ARNOLD LLP 

By: s/Joel M. Long 

Joel M. Long 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company and 

American Motorists Insurance Company 

Case 2:05-cv-00122-MCE-KJN Document 235 Filed 01/15/08 Page 5 of 6
 -6- CASE NO. 2:05-cv-00122-MCE-GGH 

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 

 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’

EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

For good cause shown above, plaintiffs’ ex parte application to continue the January 28, 

2008 trial of this matter is granted. 

The January 28, 2008 trial date is hereby vacated, and the new trial date for this matter is 

June 30, 2008, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3. 

It is further ordered the January 25, 2008 Motions in Limine Hearing is vacated and 

continued to June 20, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 15, 2008 

__________________________________ 

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 ____________________________________ 

 

Case 2:05-cv-00122-MCE-KJN Document 235 Filed 01/15/08 Page 6 of 6