Torres v. Mamadou
- Sarah Cave
- 1:19-cv-06973-SLC
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Torres v. Mamadou, Judge Cave denied without prejudice the parties’ third request to postpone the personal-injury trial.
The ruling affected Benjamin Torres and Carmen Y. Vasquez, who requested the postponement, and the defendants in the personal-injury action by keeping the December 13, 2022 trial schedule in place unless the request is renewed and supported by a showing of good cause.
What happened
Torres v. Mamadou is a personal-injury case involving Benjamin Torres, Carmen Y. Vasquez, Balde Thierno Mamadou, Sargent Logistics, Inc., and other unidentified defendants. The trial was scheduled to begin on December 13, 2022, after two earlier postponements.
The parties asked for a third postponement because Torres had recently undergone surgery and, according to the request, was expected to be unable to participate for at least two months. The court noted that Torres had known about the surgery since at least February 2022 and that the parties did not provide supporting medical or sworn evidence about its effects.
Judge Sarah L. Cave denied the third postponement request without prejudice. The parties may renew the request after a settlement conference if they show good cause, meaning a sufficient reason under the scheduling rules.
The detailed version
- Torres v. Mamadou · No. 1:19-cv-06973-SLC
- Sarah Cave
- Nov. 16, 2022
Background
This personal-injury action was set for trial on December 13, 2022. The court had previously granted two requests to postpone the trial. The first request involved Carmen Vasquez’s serious health condition and also disclosed that Benjamin Torres had canceled a scheduled surgery because of that condition. The second request concerned Torres’s anticipated surgery and the parties’ concern that the case would be harmed if the trial occurred before the surgery records and results were available to the jury.
When granting the second request, the court moved the trial to December 13, 2022 and warned that it was unlikely to grant another extension without extraordinary circumstances. The parties later told the court that Torres’s surgery was scheduled for November 1, 2022. They did not indicate at that time that he would not recover in time for trial.
Third postponement request
On November 15, 2022, the parties requested a third postponement. They stated that Torres had a drain from a stent extending from the incision in his back and that, according to his surgeon, he would be incapacitated for at least two months after surgery.
Court’s analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) provides that a scheduling order may be changed only for good cause and with the judge’s consent. The court explained that good cause depends primarily on the moving party’s diligence. Lack of prejudice to the opposing party does not make up for a lack of diligence, although the court may consider prejudice as a secondary factor.
The court found that the parties had not shown good cause. It stated that they had not been diligent in scheduling the surgery or accounting for its effects, even though Torres had known about the surgery since at least February 2022. The parties also provided no supporting proof, such as a sworn statement from Torres, a declaration from counsel, or a letter from Torres’s doctor explaining the surgery’s history and effects. The court additionally relied on the parties’ history of requesting postponements close to trial.
Disposition
The court denied the third request without prejudice. The parties may renew the request after the settlement conference if they show good cause. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the docket entry for the request. This order did not decide the underlying personal-injury claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.