Motion for Continuance
and
Motion for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

COMES NOW, Marquitta L. Portman, Plaintiff in the above styled matter, and files this her Motion for Continuance and Motion for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and in support thereof shows to the Court as follows:

The Order of June 7, 1999 contains no ruling on the merits of the motion to disqualify nor does it make written findings and conclusions. Superior Court Rule 25.6 requires that the judge hearing the Motion to Disqualify “shall rule on the merits of the motion and shall make written findings and conclusions.” The Order of June 7, 1999 does not identify which, if any, of the identified judges have been disqualified.

The Order of June 7, 1999 was signed by the Honorable George Kreeger, as presiding judge, and filed with the Clerk of Superior Court of Cobb County on the same date. The envelope bears the postmark of June 9, 1999. This instant Motion for Continuance is filed June 11, 1999, just one day after Plaintiff received the Order. Plaintiff has taken extreme care to ensure that this instant Motion be filed as soon as possible following receipt of the June 7, 1999 Order, and files said instant Motion Monday, June 14, 1999.

The Order of June 7, 1999 sets the hearing for “any and all outstanding motions,” and therefore predetermines that any and all outstanding motions will be dispensed with at the identified hearing of June 15, 1999. This is a violation of Plaintiff’s rights to due process. Among the pending Motions, The Extraordinary Motion for a New Trial is sequentially subordinate to the Post-Judgment Motion to Reopen Discovery. The Order of June 7, 1999 predetermines any Order of the June 15, 1999 hearing in that it presumes to determine that the two motions can be addressed simultaneously, rather than sequentially.

Due Process requires that Plaintiff be permitted to present witnesses and evidence to support her Motions. Plaintiff shows this Court that time is not sufficient, between June 10 and June 15, in which to organize the case, serve subpoenas, and plan for the necessary witnesses. Witnesses cannot be subpoenaed until a hearing date is determined on the Superior Court calendar. This Plaintiff had knowledge of the hearing date on June 10, 1999. The severity and finality of the pending Motions, which will result in summary judgment, are worthy of adequate preparation time, for both parties. Justice requires that the parties have opportunity to subpoena and present qualified witnesses.

A five day notice for such complicated litigation is beyond reasonable expectation for either a pro se litigant or a trained attorney. Plaintiff is represented pro se, and requests reasonable time to prepare for the case. Plaintiff is a state employee and a certified teacher with Cobb County Public Schools, assigned to the West Cobb School. June 15 is the last contract day for the school system’s certified employees, and a five day warning to be prepared for, and absent on, June 15 places an undue burden on Plaintiff, her employer, and her colleagues at the end of a school year. Plaintiff respectfully requested in her previous motion that a hearing be placed on the calendar between June 30 and July 30 to avoid such conflict. In addition, the Record shows that Plaintiff’s son graduated from Wheeler High School, with ceremonies both the evening of June 10 and the day of June 12. As is the normal occasion for most families, this is an extremely hectic time which is rightly focused on the graduate. Plaintiff did everything in her power to allow the graduation time of her youngest son to proceed without the pressure and strain caused by a 5 day warning of an impending summary judgment hearing. Plaintiff had to choose priorities between submitting an immediate response to the June 7, 1999 Order, or participating in the celebration of graduation with her son and family from Colorado. Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court understand and give leave as to why this instant Motion and the Motion to Disqualify the Honorable G. Conley Ingram were not swift and immediate. Regardless, they are timely.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff in this action, Marquitta L. Portman, respectfully requests and prays:

1. that the scheduled hearing of June 15, 1999 be removed from the Court Calendar,
2. that the Honorable George Kreeger review the Order of June 7, 1999 and issue Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, pursuant to Superior Court Rule 25.6, addressing each of Plaintiff’s prayers,
3. that adequate time be permitted to Plaintiff after receiving the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, in which Plaintiff may prepare for any hearing,
4. that Plaintiff’s Motion to Continuance be considered along with Plaintiff’s Motion to Disqualify the Honorable G. Conley Ingram, and that it be granted for a period of 30 days from the filing of a revision of the June 7 Order, and,
5. that this Court grant Plaintiff such other relief as this Court deem proper.

Submitted, this 14th day of June, 1999.

Respectfully submitted,

(signature by Marquitta L. Portman)

Marquitta L. Portman, Plaintiff

(filed June 14, with the appropriate Certificate of Service)