Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-00725/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-00725-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIO R. MORENO, 

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S-01-725-DFL

v. O R D E R 

CITY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 

Defendant. 

_____________________________/

Defendants seek reconsideration of the court’s denial of a

motion to continue the trial date. Defendants state that the

court did not give reasons for its decisions. This is not a fair

characterization of the court’s order. The court rested its

decision on three considerations: (1) plaintiff’s counsel has

other trial commitments that would cause a conflict if the

continuance were granted; (2) there are two attorneys in the

state court trial and Mr. Cregger is not the lead attorney; and,

(3) there has been no showing that counsel for the defendants

attempted to expedite the state court trial or even made the

trial judge aware of the potential for conflict. In these

Case 2:01-cv-00725-JAM-DAD Document 187 Filed 05/13/05 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

2

circumstances, defendants do not show either good cause or

manifest injustice. The motion for reconsideration does not

weaken the force of the above three considerations. 

It is unfortunate that counsel are unable to resolve this

problem or make suggestions that might ease the burden on both

sides. If plaintiff’s immediate housing needs were the only

issue, presumably the parties could bargain to a resolution on

the trial date. In the face of intransigence on both sides,

however, the court has no practical alternative than to insist on

the agreed upon trial date. To do otherwise simply transfers

defense counsel’s problem to plaintiff’s counsel. This is not

fair and does not constitute good cause or any other standard for

amendment of the trial schedule. Nor will the court permit

defense counsel to dictate trial dates to the court based on

unwise predictions and planning. The motion for reconsideration

is DENIED. Notwithstanding this ruling, counsel are urged to

attempt to reach some mutually acceptable resolution of this

issue with the assistance of the court’s courtroom deputy. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 13 May 2005

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:01-cv-00725-JAM-DAD Document 187 Filed 05/13/05 Page 2 of 2