Foltz v. City of Largo

Full title: MARGARET FOLTZ, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF LARGO and JUSTIN MARTENS, in his…

Court: United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division

Date published: Jun 1, 2011

Case No. 8:10-cv-759-T-24 EAJ (M.D. Fla. Jun. 1, 2011)

Opinion

Case No. 8:10-cv-759-T-24 EAJ.

June 1, 2011

ORDER

SUSAN BUCKLEW, District Judge

This cause comes before the Court on Defendant City of Largo's Motion to Continue Trial. (Doc. No. 31, 33). Defendant Justin Martens does not oppose the motion. (Doc. No. 34). Plaintiff opposes the motion. (Doc. No. 35). Also before the Court is Defendant Martens' Motion for Qualified Immunity (Doc. No. 28), which Plaintiff opposes (Doc. No. 30).

I. Motion to Continue Trial

In this motion, the City asks that the Court continue the trial because its lead counsel has suffered a compound fracture to his leg that required surgery to repair. As a result, his doctor has instructed him not to put weight on his leg and to keep his leg elevated. Furthermore, he is on strong pain medication that affects his ability to work. Therefore, the City asks for a three month continuance of the trial date so that lead counsel can allow his injury to heal and then participate in the trial.

Plaintiff responds that she will be prejudiced by the continuance, because she will have to reschedule her orthopedic surgeon as a trial witness and she will have to arrange for time off from work for herself again to attend the trial. Additionally, Plaintiff states that because she has employed two small law firms to represent her, it is difficult for them to rearrange their schedules to accommodate the requested continuance.

Upon consideration, the Court finds that the requested continuance is warranted and that the inconvenience to Plaintiff is not prejudicial. Accordingly, the Court will move the pretrial conference to September 8, 2011 and move the trial to the October 2011 trial calendar.

II. Motion for Qualified Immunity

Defendant Martin moves for qualified immunity less than one month prior to the originally scheduled pretrial conference. Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing that the motion is untimely. The Court agrees. As such, the Court denies his motion, and he can raise the issue of qualified immunity at trial.

III. Conclusion

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:

(1) Defendant City of Largo's Motion to Continue Trial (Doc. No. 31, 33) is GRANTED.

(2) The pretrial conference is moved from 8:30 a.m. on June 8, 2011 to 8:30 a.m. on September 8, 2011. The trial is moved from the July 2011 trial calendar to the October 2011 trial calendar.

(3) Defendant Martens' Motion for Qualified Immunity (Doc. No. 28) is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, this 1^st day of June, 2011.