Free Motion to Continue - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

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

DANIEL G. KNAUSS United States Attorney District of Arizona SUZANNE M. CHYNOWETH Assistant U.S. Attorney Arizona Bar Number 6835 40 North Central Avenue, Suite 1200 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Telephone: (602) 514-7500 Facsimile: (602) 514-7760 email: [email protected]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Alexander Jung, Plaintiff, v. CIV-04-0429-PHX-MHM

MOTION TO CONTINUE HEARING AND JOINT STATEMENT AND REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED John Potter, Postmaster General, U.S. Postal RULING Service Defendant. Defendant hereby requests a brief continuance of the deadline for filing the Joint Statement (currently due September 18, 2007) and Hearing (set for September 24, 2007) regarding the equitable remedies that should be awarded to Plaintiff. [Doc. # 188.] Defendant further requests an expedited ruling on this motion. Defendant requests a continuance for two reasons: (1) undersigned counsel is scheduled for vacation during the time the joint filing is due and the hearing has been set; (2) additional time is needed to review the trial transcript, which is not available until September 18, 2007 or later. Undersigned counsel is scheduled to be out of the office on a vacation from September 17, 2007 until October 1, 2007. Those arrangements were made before the Court's September 7, 2007 order regarding the hearing and joint statement. Undersigned counsel's vacation plans include the non-refundable purchase of airline tickets for travel out of state. Immediately after the Court set the hearing, undersigned counsel contacted Plaintiff's counsel, who despite having had nearly a 3 week vacation just before the jury trial, stated that he objects to a continuance. Mr. Patterson claims that Ms. Sandoval participated in the trial, and could therefore do the hearing. However, Ms. Sandoval was not involved in this case, which has been pending for several years, until shortly before trial, and her involvement has been in a second chair capacity. She is a Postal
Case 2:04-cv-00429-MHM Document 189 Filed 09/11/2007 Page 1 of 3

1 Service Attorney from the Regional Counel's office in Denver, Colorado, and has her own 2 responsibilities in administrative and other matters for the Postal Service, including this District. 3 Ms. Sandoval was appointed as a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney for purposes of this case to 4 assist the U.S. Attorneys Office, which has suffered from significant staff shortages for quite 5 some time. Undersigned counsel has been lead counsel in this case since its inception and, as 6 such, should be present for any hearing and to assist on any remaining issues in this case. For 7 example, during the trial, Plaintiff's counsel asserted that certain evidence at issue at trial had 8 been timely and properly provided, a fact disputed by undersigned counsel. Ms. Sandoval would 9 not know the entire file and history of the case to respond to these types of issues, as well as 10 others that may arise. Conducting the hearing while Ms. Chynoweth is unavailable would 11 prejudice the Defendant. In contrast, a short delay in holding the equity hearing, 2-3 weeks, 12 would have minimal impact on Plaintiff, who is currently employed. 13 Another reason for continuing the hearing is to allow counsel for Defendant sufficient time

14 to review the trial transcript in advance of submitting the joint report or conducting the hearing. 15 The trial transcript was ordered shortly after the trial, and will not be available until next week. 16 A review of the trial transcript will be important so that all appropriate issues can be identified 17 and properly briefed for the Court. 18 Finally, Defendant disputes that the hearing will take 45 minutes. The length of the

19 hearing will depend upon what the Court determines is the appropriate scope of equitable 20 remedies. One of the issues is whether Plaintiff's September 28, 2002 termination for being 21 AWOL precludes his recovering damages based upon his Rehabilitation Act Claims between 22 October 2001 and March 2002. [See e.g., Doc. #137.] Another issue is whether reinstatement is 23 appropriate. If the Court agrees with Defendant, that reinstatement is not warranted as a matter 24 of law or based upon the undisputed trial testimony, it will change what witnesses and evidence 25 is necessary at the hearing. 26 Based upon the foregoing, it is therefore requested that the Court continue the deadline for

27 filing the joint statement to a date on or after October 5, 2007, and continue the hearing to a date 28 after October 9, 2007. 2
Case 2:04-cv-00429-MHM Document 189 Filed 09/11/2007 Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6

Respectfully submitted this 11th day of September, 2007. DANIEL G. KNAUSS United States Attorney District of Arizona s/Suzanne M. Chynoweth SUZANNE M. CHYNOWETH Assistant U.S. Attorney CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

7 I hereby certify that on September 11, 2007, I electronically transmitted the attached 8 document to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice 9 of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants: 10 Rosval A. Patterson 11 777 E. Thomas Rd. Phoenix, AZ 85014 12 s/S. Guerin ________________________________ 13 Office of the U.S. Attorney 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3
Case 2:04-cv-00429-MHM Document 189 Filed 09/11/2007 Page 3 of 3