Chris Pine to Be Grilled by Neighbor in Court After Judge Shuts Down Actor’s Plea to Postpone Trial

Chris Pine‘s attempts to postpone the upcoming trial for his legal battle with his neighbor was shut down, In Touch can exclusively report.

According to court documents obtained by In Touch, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge denied Chris’ motion to push the November 18 trial to April 2025.

Thomas Brown, the lawyer representing Chris, 44, and his co-defendant, Bradley Lyons, claimed he had two other trials that were scheduled around the same time.

He claimed he would not have enough time to prepare or attend depositions. The lawyer noted that Chris was scheduled to be deposed in the “coming weeks.”

Helen Yu, the well-known entertainment lawyer who sued Chris and Bradley, demanded the request be denied. She said the trial date, initially scheduled for December 2023, had already been pushed three times for Chris.

“It was continued to April 2, 2024. It was continued again to August 5, 2024. And it was continued a third time to November 18, 2024,” she said.

Helen said Chris had other lawyers working on the case and did not need Thomas.

She argued, “Defendants’ application to continue the trial date is not well taken and should be denied. It’s just a ploy to avoid trial and to avoid addressing the problem that necessitated the filing of this case.”

At the recent hearing, the judge sided with Helen and ruled the case will proceed as scheduled. He also ordered the parties to complete all outstanding discovery.

As In Touch previously reported, Helen sued Chris in 2022 for trespass, nuisance, and negligence.

Helen’s home shares a boundary with Chris’ property. The actor bought the three-bedroom, three-bathroom, 2,205 square-foot home in 2010 for $3 million.

Helen accused Chris of installing numerous Ficus Benjamina trees on his property, which allegedly caused her a ton of problems.

Helen’s attorney claimed, “Ficus Benjamina are known to have extremely invasive root systems. Through action or inaction, [Chris has] unreasonably, negligently, or intentionally caused or allowed the root systems of [his trees] which were planted on the boundary line between the properties and encroach upon [Helen’s home], causing substantial and ongoing damage to the [Helen’s home], including cracking of walls and substantial damages to the plumbing and pipes, pool, pool deck, and other areas of in or around [Helen’s home], creating an unreasonably unsafe condition, and interfering with [Helen’s] use and enjoyment of [her] property.”

In her lawsuit, seeking unspecified damages, Helen’s lawyer added, “The encroachment upon and entry onto the [Helen’s home] by the [Chris’ trees] constitutes an ongoing and harmful nuisance, has caused substantial and ongoing damage [Helen’s] property, created an unreasonably unsafe condition, and interfered with [Helen’s] use and enjoyment of their property.” Chris denied the accusations.

He countersued Helen, claiming she put up a fence that was on his side of the property line. Helen denied the claims.

“The hardship that [Helen] would suffer if forced to removed improvements from the disputed property would be greatly disproportionate to any hardship that [Chris] would suffer if the improvements are permitted to remain,” her attorney argued. Both cases are ongoing.