Jamie McCarthy / Getty
Chris Pine’s Neighbor Accuses Actor of ‘Ploy’ to Delay Trial Ahead of Court Showdown
Chris Pine’s neighbor pleaded with a judge to not postpone the scheduled trial date where she will face off with the actor, In Touch can exclusively report.
According to court documents obtained by In Touch, Helen Yu, a well-known entertainment attorney, asked that the request brought by Chris, 44, and his codefendant, Bradley Lyons, be denied.
This week, Chris and Bradley asking for an emergency hearing to present their case for the November 18 trial date to be pushed to April 2025.
Thomas Brown, the lawyer representing Chris and Bradley, said he is engaged in two other trials during the period immediately before and during the trial in this matter, “which will overlap and [the cases are] five-plus and six-plus years old.”
The lawyer said his work on the other cases would leave him with no time to prepare for trial against Helen. He said if the request wasn’t granted it would leave Chris and Bradley without their “lead trial attorney” and they would “be forced to conduct a trial wholly unprepared.”
In his filing, the lawyer revealed Chris is scheduled to be deposed in the “coming weeks.”
He said without the continuance granted he won’t be able to attend the depositions. Helen quickly opposed the request. She said Chris had already previously been granted three continuances of the trial date.
She noted the initial trial date was December 4, 2023. “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.
Further, she argued Chris and his lawyer had enough time to depose witnesses if they wished. Helen also pointed out Chris and Bradley have other lawyers working on the case.
She added, “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 address the problem that necessitated the filing of this case.”
Helen demanded the trial date in November not be changed. A judge has yet to rule.
As In Touch previously reported, Helen sued Chris in 2022 for trespass, nuisance, and negligence. Helen claimed Chris installed numerous Ficus Benjamina trees on his property which caused her a ton of problems. In the lawsuit, Helen said her home shares a boundary with Chris’ home.
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 filing, 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.” The lawsuit demanded unspecified damages.
Chris denied all allegations of wrongdoing and countersued Helen.
He claimed her fence was on his side of the property line.
The actor bought a three-bedroom, three-bathroom, 2,205 square-foot home in 2010 for $3 million. Chris said he lost a lot of land due to Helen’s fence.
The actor’s lawsuit demanded the fence be moved. Helen denied all allegations in the countersuit.
“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 said.
The case is ongoing.
Conversation
All comments are subject to our Community Guidelines. In Touch Weekly does not endorse the opinions and views shared by our readers in our comment sections. Our comments section is a place where readers can engage in healthy, productive, lively, and respectful discussions. Offensive language, hate speech, personal attacks, and/or defamatory statements are not permitted. Advertising or spam is also prohibited.
