Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_99-cv-02522/USCOURTS-caed-2_99-cv-02522-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

 Summary Judgment in favor of the remaining named 1

Defendants in this matter was granted by Order of this Court

filed December 24, 2001.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONNA BAILEY, NO. 2:99-cv-2522-MCE-EFB

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES

DIVISION; AT&T; DIANA

WONG; RICK MASON; CATH

WASHBURN and DOES 1 through

50, inclusive,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Through the present motion, Defendant AT&T Wireless

Services, Inc. (“Defendant”) moves to continue the trial date in 1

this matter, presently set for February 14, 2007. Defendant’s

Motion is based upon a professional scheduling conflict that

makes its current trial counsel, David L. Perrault, unavailable

to try the case as currently scheduled.

Case 2:99-cv-02522-MCE -EFB Document 185 Filed 01/23/07 Page 1 of 5
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

For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s Motion will be

denied.

BACKGROUND

This action involves allegations of gender discrimination

and harassment by Plaintiff Donna Bailey (“Plaintiff”) against

her former employer, Defendant AT&T Wireless Services. Plaintiff

alleges violations of state and federal laws pursuant to Title

VII and The California Fair Employment and Housing Act. 

Plaintiff’s lawsuit was originally removed to this Court on

December 22, 1999, more than eight years ago. The presently

scheduled trial date of February 14, 2007 is the twelfth trial

date assigned in this case.

Defendant’s current counsel, the law firm of Hardy, Erich,

Brown and Wilson, did not substitute into this matter until

September 19, 2006, as a result of illness on the part of prior

counsel Kevin R. Iams. While Plaintiff had previously stipulated

to a trial continuance in 2006 to accommodate Mr. Iams’ health

concerns, Plaintiff now opposes this request given the numerous

and lengthy delays that have already transpired.

According to the Declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel, Anthony

J. Poidmore, Mr. Perrault initially informed him of the potential

need for yet another trial continuance on December 1, 2006. 

(Poidmore Decl., ¶ 6). 

///

///

///

Case 2:99-cv-02522-MCE -EFB Document 185 Filed 01/23/07 Page 2 of 5
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

Perrault explained that a trial scheduled to begin in Sutter

County Superior Court on January 9, 2007 might run longer than

its originally anticipated three week length, making him

potentially available to start trial in this matter on February

14, 2007. (Perrault Decl., ¶¶ 5-7, 10; Motion, 2:1-3). 

Poidmore, in turn, told Perrault that his client was already

upset with the delays in the case and would not agree to any

further continuances, therefore necessitating this motion. 

(Poidmore Decl., ¶ 7). 

STANDARD

The decision to grant or deny a continuance of trial lies

well within the discretion of this Court. Rios-Barrios v.

I.N.S., 776 F.2d 859, 862-863 (9th Cir. 1985). In assessing the

need for a continuance, four factors should be considered: 1) the

requesting party’s diligence in preparing his case for trial; 2)

the need for the continuance; 3) whether granting the continuance

will inconvenience the court and the opposing party, including

its witnesses; and 4) the extent to which the party requesting

the continuance will suffer harm as a result of the district

court’s denial. U.S. v. 2.61 Acres of Land, 791 F.2d 666, 670-71

(9th Cir. 1986). No one of these factors is dispositive; absent

a showing of prejudice to the requesting party, a district

court’s refusal to grant a continuance will not be disturbed on

appeal. Id. at 671.

///

///

Case 2:99-cv-02522-MCE -EFB Document 185 Filed 01/23/07 Page 3 of 5
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

 Mr. Perrault states that the Solano County case was set 2

for trial in June of 2006 (Perrault Supp. Decl., ¶ 7), and the

February 14, 2007 trial date in this case was established by

Minute Order dated July 20, 2006.

4

ANALYSIS

Defendant’s Motion does not indicate what efforts, if any,

Mr. Perrault made to have another attorney in his office be

available to try this matter, despite his admitted awareness on

December 1, 2006, some two-and-a-half months prior to trial, that

he himself might be unavailable. While Perrault claims in his

Supplemental Declaration that he is the only attorney in his firm

who has tried an employment case, he concedes that his firm has

ten other attorneys, five of whom try cases. (Perrault Supp.

Decl., ¶¶ 3, 5). Perrault does not say why one of those

attorneys could not have been ready to assume the handling of

this matter given the considerable period of time he has been

aware of a potential conflict. Perrault himself has handled the

case only for the past four months; nearly two of which he knew

that a trial conflict might exist. In addition, both this case

and the case for which a conflict was claimed were both set for

trial well in advance of Perrault’s assumption of the defense

herein on September 19, 2006. Under these circumstances, the 2

Court cannot conclude that Mr. Perrault and his firm have

demonstrated diligence in obviating the need for a continuance.

///

///

///

///

Case 2:99-cv-02522-MCE -EFB Document 185 Filed 01/23/07 Page 4 of 5
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

 Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, 3

the Court orders this matter submitted on the briefing. E.D.

Local Rule 78-230(h).

5

Granting yet another continuance in this eight year old case

would, on the other hand, be clearly inconvenient to the

Plaintiff, who would yet again be forced to reschedule the

testimony of subpoenaed witnesses, clear her own schedule, and

once more make arrangements to travel to California from New

Hampshire where she currently resides. In addition, as Plaintiff

points out, as memories continue to fade with the passage of

additional time she is also subject to prejudice in that regard

as well.

After carefully balancing all the competing concerns

implicated by Defendant’s continuance request, the Court

concludes that further delay is not warranted. Defendant’s

Motion to Continue Trial is accordingly DENIED.3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 23, 2007

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:99-cv-02522-MCE -EFB Document 185 Filed 01/23/07 Page 5 of 5