Employers Mutual Casualty Company v. Accent Windows

Full title: EMPLOYERS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. ACCENT WINDOWS, INC.…

Court: United States District Court, D. Colorado

Date published: Aug 27, 2009

Civil Case No. 08-cv-01784-REB-CBS (D. Colo. Aug. 27, 2009)

Opinion

Civil Case No. 08-cv-01784-REB-CBS.

August 27, 2009

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

ROBERT BLACKBURN, District Judge

This matter is before me on the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Stay of Trial Date [#53]¹ filed August 27, 2009. The motion is granted.

1 "[#53]" is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific paper by the court's case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this convention throughout this order.

The above-captioned case concerns an insurance coverage dispute. Resolution of the claims remaining in this case is dependent on the resolution of an underlying civil suit currently pending in state court. The parties ask that proceedings in this case be stayed, pending resolution of the underlying case in state court. I construe the motion as a motion to continue the trial in this case.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has outlined four primary factors that should be considered to determine if a continuance is necessary. See, e.g., Morrison Knudsen Corp. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. , 175 F.3d 1221, 1230 (10th Cir. 1999) (citing U.S. v. West , 828 F.2d 1468, 1469 (10th Cir. 1987) (listing factors)). The key relevant factors are:

(1) the diligence of the party requesting the continuance; (2) the likelihood that the continuance, if granted, would accomplish the purpose underlying the party's expressed need for the continuance; (3) the inconvenience to the opposing party, its witnesses, and the court resulting from the continuance; [and] (4) the need asserted for the continuance and the harm that [movant] might suffer as result of the district court's denial of the continuance.

United States v. Rivera , 900 F.2d 1462, 1475 (10^th Cir. 1990) (quoting United States v. West , 828 F.2d 1468, 1470 (10^th Cir. 1987)). The present motion is unopposed, and each of the four relevant factors weigh in favor of continuance.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. That the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Stay of Trial Date [#53] filed August 27, 2009, is GRANTED;

2. That the Trial Preparation Conference currently set for September 17, 2009, at 9:00 a.m. is VACATED and continued pending further order of court;

3. That the trial currently set for September 21, 2009, at 9:00 a.m. is VACATED and continued pending further order of court;

4. That on or before September 4, 2009, the plaintiff SHALL FILE a status report, outlining the current status of the underlying case, Roeding v. Accent Windows, et. al, Case No. 08CV660, District Court, Douglas County, Colorado; and

5. That on or before September 4, 2009, the parties shall SHOW CAUSE why the above-captioned case should not be closed administratively, subject to reopening for good cause, under D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2.