Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08123/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08123-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

KayAnne Riley, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

City of Prescott, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-11-08123-PCT-JAT

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is a motion filed pursuant to Rules 59(e) and 60(b). 

(Doc. 335). Because each of these rules specifically deals with amending a judgment, 

and because no judgment has been entered in this case, any motion under these Rules is 

procedurally premature.1

 Accordingly, the motion will be denied. 

 The Court intends to set trial in this case for Monday, December 5, 2016. 

Accordingly, counsel has one week from the date of this Order to review all attorney, 

client and witness schedules for a trial beginning December 5, 2016. Any motion to 

continue this trial date must be filed within seven (7) calendar days. Any such motion 

 

1

 Moreover, to the extent this motion could be interpreted as a motion for reconsideration under Local Rule 7.2(g), Defendants already filed, and the Court already denied, a motion for reconsideration on this topic at Doc. 325. Further, to the extent the 

motion to could be considered a second motion for reconsideration under Local Rule 

7.2(g), based on an alleged “change in the law” that occurred on December 1, 2015, the 

motion is untimely. Any such motion for reconsideration would have been due within 14 

days of December 1, 2015. To the extent the motion suggests this case was stayed as of December 1, 2015, the motion is in error. The Order regarding a stay stayed only trial

and not the entire case. (Doc. 327). This fact is evidenced by the Court continuing to address matters collateral to trial even after the Order staying trial was issued. See (Docs. 

329, 331). 

Case 3:11-cv-08123-JAT Document 336 Filed 06/08/16 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

must show good cause why trial cannot proceed in approximately six months. In the 

event the any party moves for a continuation, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of 

this Order, counsel must confer among themselves and with all clients and witnesses and 

agree-to at least two trial dates that will allow trial of this case to conclude by March 31, 

2017. 

 Additionally, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of this Order, counsel shall 

confer and file a joint notice advising the Court of: 1) an estimated length of trial, and 2) 

whether a jury trial was properly demanded. If a motion to continue was filed within 

seven days, this joint notice must include proposed trial dates within the time frame 

specified above. Based on the foregoing, 

IT IS ORDERED that the motion for relief under Rules 59(e) and 60(b) (Doc. 

335) is denied. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any motion to continue the Court’s proposed 

December 5, 2016 trial date is due within 7 days. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a joint notice (as specified above) is due 

within 10 days. 

 Dated this 8th day of June, 2016. 

Case 3:11-cv-08123-JAT Document 336 Filed 06/08/16 Page 2 of 2