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

ORDER 

Page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES COMMODITY

FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES A. MAGGIO; TRADE RISK

MANAGEMENT, LLC (Washington); and

TRADE RISK MANAGEMENT, LLC 

(Oregon),

Defendants.

CASE NO. C05-5766RJB

ORDER ON MOTION TO

POSTPONE TRIAL DATE AND

ALL OTHER PRETRIAL

DEADLINES

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant James A. Maggio’s Motion to Postpone

Trial Date and All Other Pretrial Deadlines (Dkt. 40). The Court has considered the pleadings

filed in support of and in opposition to the motion and the remainder of the file herein.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

According to the complaint, the defendants sell a stock market analysis service known as

Sigma Band Charting through an internet website and materially misrepresent the risk and profitmaking ability of the service. Dkt. 1 at 2. The complaint alleges that the defendants’ conduct

violates the Commodity Exchange Act and Commodities Futures Trading Commission

regulations. Id. at 7.

On May 31, 2007, counsel for the defendants withdrew from representation of the

defendants. Dkt. 38. The defendants have not obtained replacement counsel. 

Mr. Maggio has sent three emails to the Court. Dkt. 39; Dkt. 40; Dkt. 43. By Minute

Case 3:05-cv-05766-RJB Document 45 Filed 06/21/07 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

27

28

ORDER 

Page 2

Order, the Court construed Mr. Maggio’s second letter as a Motion to Postpone the Trial Date

and All Other Pretrial Deadlines. Dkt. 41.

Mr. Maggio initially based his request on the need for time to retain Richard Brady as

counsel. Dkt. 40. Plaintiff’s counsel informs the Court that Mr. Brady is no longer willing to

represent Mr. Maggio. Dkt. 42 at 2. The plaintiff does not object to “a reasonable change in the

trial date to accommodate any scheduling conflict by an attorney representing Mr. Maggio” but

objects to any extension of discovery.” Id. Mr. Maggio did not file a proper reply, and the Court

declines to construe Mr. Maggio’s third email (Dkt. 43) as a reply (see Minute Order, Dkt. 44).

II. DISCUSSION

Trial courts have broad discretion in deciding whether to grant or deny a request for a

continuance. U.S. v. Flynt, 756 F.2d 1352, 1358 (1985), amended by 764 F.2d 675 (9th Cir.

1985). Trial in this matter is currently set for November 13, 2007. Dkt. 27. The discovery

deadline is July 16, 2007. Id. Trial has already been rescheduled once at the request of the parties.

Dkt. 26; Dkt. 27. If Mr. Maggio succeeds at obtaining new counsel, a continuance of the trial

date and other pretrial deadlines may be justified. At this juncture, continuance of the trial date

would be premature and speculative. The Court should therefore deny the motion without

prejudice, allowing Mr. Maggio’s counsel, in the event that he obtains counsel, to raise the issue if

necessary. 

III. ORDER

Therefore, it is hereby

ORDERED that Defendant James A. Maggio’s Motion to Postpone Trial Date and All

Other Pretrial Deadlines (Dkt. 40) is DENIED without prejudice.

The Clerk of the Court is instructed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel

of record and to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address.

DATED this 21st day of June, 2007.

ARobert J. Bryan

United States District Judge 

Case 3:05-cv-05766-RJB Document 45 Filed 06/21/07 Page 2 of 2