The defendants sought to adjourn a scheduled 20-day trial to bring a summary judgment motion, or alternatively, to await a decision in a similar case.
The plaintiff opposed, arguing procedural requirements for such an adjournment.
Following a relevant summary judgment decision by another judge in a related action, the court vacated the trial date and ordered a schedule for the defendants' summary judgment motion.
The court found that a summary judgment could resolve the case more quickly and cheaply, emphasizing judicial economy and the principle of stare decisis, and that prior decisions refusing summary judgment in similar cases did not preclude reconsideration given new circumstances.
