Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_07-cv-08009/USCOURTS-azd-3_07-cv-08009-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Wrongful Death

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Alice Rybolt, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

Mario Terrance Valella, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-8009-PCT-PGR 

 

 ORDER

Having considered Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue Trial (doc. #36), wherein

the plaintiff’s counsel requests that the currently scheduled trial date of November

18, 2008 be continued so that he may attend a family wedding, the Court finds

that the motion should be denied without prejudice as premature.

First, nothing in the motion establishes that the plaintiff’s counsel has the

authority to file the motion given the fact that his client, Ms. Rybolt, the statutory

plaintiff, died on May 18, 2008. The general rule is that the death of a party

terminates the power of her attorney to act on her behalf. See Mubi v. Broomfield,

492 P.2d 700, 702-03 (Ariz.1972).

Second, the relief requested in the motion may very well be unnecessary

given that the plaintiff’s counsel states in the motion that he and his law firm are

intending to move to withdraw from this action on or after June 30, 2008. 

Case 3:07-cv-08009-PGR Document 37 Filed 06/11/08 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

1

 In any case, counsel are advised that it is the Court’s policy to attempt

to accommodate any counsel’s schedule, when reasonably necessary and

reasonably possible, when setting a final trial date.

- 2 -

Third, the requested relief may also be unnecessary even if the plaintiff’s

counsel continues to represent any substituted statutory plaintiff since there are

pretrial proceedings yet to happen that could very well change the currently

scheduled trial date, such as the filing of a dispositive motion. The Court will not

change a trial date without some reasonable assurance that a change is actually

necessary and such a showing has not yet been made.1

 Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue Trial (doc. #36) is

denied without prejudice as premature.

DATED this 11th day of June, 2008.

Case 3:07-cv-08009-PGR Document 37 Filed 06/11/08 Page 2 of 2