The defendants sought a third adjournment of two scheduled motions, including their cross-motion to dismiss the action or set aside default judgment, and the plaintiffs' motion to lift a stay on a writ of seizure and sale.
The defendants argued for the adjournment to file a new expert report after their initial expert's cross-examination raised concerns about the adequacy of the opinion.
The plaintiffs opposed, citing repeated delays and the defendants' attempt to "patch up" their case with new evidence.
The court denied the adjournment, emphasizing the need for finality, the waste of judicial resources, and the impropriety of introducing new evidence after cross-examination to address perceived weaknesses, aligning with the principles against case-splitting.
