Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00836/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00836-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of 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 1 Defendants’ request for a continuance complied with Local Rule

(continued...)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY )

OF AMERICA, a Washington ) CIV. S-04-836 GEB JFM

corporation, )

)

Plaintiff, ) 

) ORDER

v. ) 

)

MBA CONSTRUCTION, a California )

corporation doing business as MACK )

CONSTRUCTION; KEVIN D. MACK, an )

individual; KATIE BAUGH, an )

individual; and DANNY W. BAUGH, )

an individual, )

)

Defendants. )

)

On April 27, 2005, the Court continued Plaintiff’s motion

for partial summary judgment previously scheduled for May 2, 2005, to

June 27, 2005. Plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration of

that continuance. 

While the Court was busy handling a congested docket,

Defendants requested that the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion be

continued, arguing that the hearing should be continued “because trial

of a related action involving the same parties and same subject matter

. . . commence[d] on April 26, 2005.”1 (Defs.’ Request for

Case 2:04-cv-00836-GEB -JFM Document 42 Filed 04/29/05 Page 1 of 2
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

1(...continued)

78-230(g), which states that “Requests for continuances of hearings on

the motion calendar . . . shall be made to the Judge . . . at least five

(5) court days prior to the scheduled hearing date.” 

2 Local Rule 78-230(d) states that “Not less than five (5) court

days preceding the date of hearing, the moving party may serve and file

a reply to any opposition filed by a responding party.”

3 The motion for reconsideration also appears to contain

arguments that should have been set forth in a timely reply brief. In

fact, nearly two-thirds of Plaintiff’s fourteen page motion for

reconsideration is dedicated to those arguments.

2

Continuance at 1.) Plaintiff did not respond to that request, even

though it could have done so at the prescribed time for filing a reply

brief.2 Therefore, the request was granted. Plaintiff then filed a

motion for reconsideration in which Plaintiff argues “Defendants have

improperly alleged untrue facts in their Opposition in order to obtain

a continuance” and, in fact, “different contracts and legal issues are

at issue [in the trial which commenced April 26, 2005], such that

under no circumstances could a result in the trial in that other

action be dispositive in any way in the present indemnity 

action. . . .”3 (Pl.’s Mot. for Recons. at 2.) However, Plaintiff

did not explain why it could not have opposed the continuance request

in a timely filed reply brief. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for

reconsideration is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 29, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00836-GEB -JFM Document 42 Filed 04/29/05 Page 2 of 2