Opinion
No. CIV 03-1128 JB/DJS.
March 13, 2006
Valerie Garcia Lucero, Ranchos de Taos, New Mexico, Pro Se Plaintiff.
James P. Sullivan, Brennan Sullivan, P.A., Santa Fe, New Mexico, Attorneys for the Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Defendants' Motion to Continue April 10, 2006 Trial Setting, filed February 15, 2006 (Doc. 45). The primary issue is whether there is any reason the Court should not vacate this trial setting given that the Defendants' counsel will be in trial for the two weeks immediately preceding this trial. Because the Defendants have shown good grounds for the Court to vacate the setting in this case, the Court will grant the Defendants' motion.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On July 8, 2005, the Court issued an Order Setting Case Deadlines, and identified April 10, 2006 as the trial date. See Order Setting Case Deadlines at 1 (Doc. 27). On December 15, 2005, the Court issued an order allowing Lucero's attorney to withdraw as Plaintiff's counsel. See Notice and Order Regarding Withdrawal of Counsel (Doc. 44). Lucero is currently pro se.
Counsel for the Defendants represents that he is on a firm setting for a jury trial commencing March 27, 2006 in Sharon Roberts v. City of Truth or Consequences, Cause No. D-0721-CV-2002-00033 before the Honorable Kevin R. Sweazea, District Judge, in the Seventh Judicial District, State of New Mexico. See Motion to Continue April 10, 2006 Trial Setting ¶ 3, at 1. The Defendants' counsel represents that the Roberts trial is anticipated to last approximately two weeks. See id. He also states that theRoberts case was filed four years ago and that the possibility of settlement before trial is remote. See id.
The Defendants represent that their attorney contacted Lucero by telephone at the number on file with the Court, and she advised the Defendants' counsel that Adam Baker represented her.See id. ¶ 5, at 2. The Defendants state that, upon contacting Mr. Baker's office, they were advised that Mr. Baker did not represent Lucero. See id. The Defendants state that their counsel again contacted Lucero through the telephone number on file with the Court, and Lucero advised via a voice message that the Defendants' counsel should quit calling her at that number, should direct all inquiries to her counsel, Mr. Baker, and should mail her documents, which she would then forward to her attorney, Mr. Baker. See id.
The Defendants move for a continuance of the April 10, 2006 trial setting. See id. at 1. The Defendants served Lucero and Mr. Baker. See Motion to Continue April 10, 2006 Trial Setting, Certificate of Service at 2. Neither Lucero nor any attorney representing her has responded to the motion.
ANALYSIS
The Defendants' counsel represents that he cannot adequately prepare for this case with the Roberts trial expected to last through April 7, 2006. See Motion to Continue April 10, 2006 Trial Setting ¶ 3, at 1. That is understandable and reasonable. As it appears that Lucero is currently pro se, it may be that she may require additional time in which to secure counsel before proceeding to trial.
In any case, the Defendants have shown good grounds for the Court to vacate the trial setting. The Court will vacate and reset the trial setting of April 10, 2006. The Court will issue a scheduling order in accordance with the new setting.
IT IS ORDERED.