Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_96-cv-02494/USCOURTS-cand-4_96-cv-02494-9/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KALITTA AIR, L.L.C,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CENTRAL TEXAS AIRBORNE SYSTEMS, INC.,

Defendant. /

No. 96-02494 CW

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO ADJOURN

TRIAL

This case is currently set for trial on November 1, 2010.

Plaintiff Kalitta Air moved to adjourn the trial date and

reschedule it to July, 2011. Defendant Central Texas Airborne

Systems joined Plaintiff’s motion. Having thoroughly considered

the moving papers, past case management conferences and past

filings concerning the trial date, the Court denies Plaintiff’s

motion.

On April 30, 2009, the Court notified the party of its

availability to retry the case in August or October of 2009. The

parties could not agree on a date -- Plaintiff wanted a trial as

soon as possible and stated that it could be ready by August, 2009

and Defendant stated that it had conflicts in August, but could be

ready by October, 2009. On June 10, 2009, rather than choose a

date that would disadvantage one party, the Court set the trial for

Case 4:96-cv-02494-CW Document 2047 Filed 07/28/10 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

its next available date, November 1, 2010. 

Almost a year later, on June 7, 2010, the parties submitted a

stipulation which asked the Court to continue to trial to March,

2011 because of “trial scheduling conflicts of counsel, the

necessity of retaining and deposing experts, and the possibility of

ongoing settlement negotiations.” The Court declined the

stipulation and ordered the parties to submit a noticed motion

detailing the scheduling issues and when they arose. Ordinarily,

the Court does its best to accommodate stipulations made by

counsel. However, in this case, the Court did not do so. This

case was filed over fourteen years ago and has already been tried

twice. Counsel for both parties were on notice since October 8,

2008, the date the Ninth Circuit issued its memorandum disposition,

that this case might be tried again. On July 8, 2010, Plaintiff

filed the instant motion to adjourn the trial date and on July 19,

2010 Defendant joined the motion. The parties described various

scheduling conflicts but none that arose prior to the date that

this trial date was noticed. 

At the time the Court set the trial date, the parties

represented that they had ample time to prepare for a trial to

begin in October, 2009. They did not state that they had any

conflicts in November, 2010. The parties also knew that the Court

double and triple sets its trial dates almost one year into the

future. The Court has preserved the November, 2010 dates and has

no other trials set for those dates. Continuing a trial of this

length to another date certain would be difficult for the Court and

unfair to other litigants. The parties have not presented

Case 4:96-cv-02494-CW Document 2047 Filed 07/28/10 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

persuasive reasons to adjourn the November 1, 2010 trial date. 

The final pretrial conference will be held on October 12,

2010, at 2:00 p.m. A ten-day jury trial will begin on November 1,

2010 at 8:30 a.m., and will be conducted on November 2, 3, 10, 12,

15-19. The Court vacates the August 12, 2010 hearing. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 07/28/10 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:96-cv-02494-CW Document 2047 Filed 07/28/10 Page 3 of 3