The efforts made by Chris Pine to delay the forthcoming trial in his legal dispute with his neighbor have been rejected, as revealed exclusively by In Touch. Court documents reviewed by the publication indicate that a judge from the Los Angeles Superior Court denied Chris’ request to move the trial date from November 18 to April 2025.
Thomas Brown, who represents Chris, 44, along with co-defendant Bradley Lyons, argued that he had two other trials scheduled at that time, making it challenging for him to prepare adequately or attend depositions. He also mentioned that Chris was set to be deposed in the “coming weeks.”
Attorney Helen Yu Argues Against Chris Pine’s Trial Delay in Trespass Case
Helen Yu, the prominent entertainment attorney who filed the lawsuit against Chris and Bradley, argued that the postponement request should be denied. She pointed out that the trial date, originally set for December 2023, had already been rescheduled three times for Chris. Helen recounted, “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.”
Helen asserted that Chris had other lawyers involved in the case and did not require Thomas’ representation.
She contended, “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.”
During the recent hearing, the judge ruled in favor of Helen, deciding that the trial would proceed as originally scheduled. Additionally, the judge ordered both parties to complete all outstanding discovery.
As previously reported by In Touch, Helen filed a lawsuit against Chris in 2022 for trespass, nuisance, and negligence. Helen’s property borders Chris’ residence, which he purchased in 2010 for $3 million. The three-bedroom, three-bathroom home spans 2,205 square feet.
She accused Chris of planting multiple Ficus Benjamina trees on his property, claiming they caused serious problems for her. Helen’s attorney stated, “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, to encroach upon [Helen’s home], causing substantial and ongoing damage to [her property], including cracking walls and considerable damage to plumbing, pipes, pool, pool deck, and other areas, creating an unreasonably unsafe condition and interfering with [Helen’s] use and enjoyment of [her] property.”
In her lawsuit, which seeks unspecified damages, Helen’s attorney added, “The encroachment upon and entry onto [Helen’s home] by [Chris’ trees] constitutes an ongoing and harmful nuisance, has caused substantial and ongoing damage to [her property], created an unreasonably unsafe condition, and interfered with [Helen’s] use and enjoyment of [her] property.” Chris has denied all allegations against him.
In response, he countersued Helen, claiming she constructed a fence that encroached on his side of the property line, which Helen disputed. Her attorney argued, “The hardship that [Helen] would suffer if forced to remove improvements from the disputed property would be greatly disproportionate to any hardship that [Chris] would experience if the improvements are allowed to remain.” Both cases are still
