Bruce Lisker v. City of Los Angeles et al
Filing
443
ORDER STRIKING EX PARTE APPLICATION 438 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiff's application. Plaintiff may refile his request as a regularly noticed motion, but only after reinitiating Local Rule 7-3's meet-and-confer procedures and fully complying with both the letter and spirit of that Rule. (bp)
O
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
14
15
BRUCE E. LISKER,
v.
Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:09-cv-09374-ODW(AJWx)
ORDER STRIKING EX PARTE
APPLICATION [438]
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, LOS
ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT,
ANDREW MONSUE, and HOWARD
LANDGREN,
Defendants.
16
17
18
This Court has received this matter upon reassignment from Judge Matz, and
19
with it Plaintiff’s ex parte application to certify Defendants Landgren and Monsue’s
20
absolute-immunity appeal as frivolous. (ECF No. 438.) Plaintiff’s application is
21
DENIED.
22
“Ex parte motions are rarely justified . . . .” Mission Power Eng’g Co. v. Cont’l
23
Casualty Co., 883 F. Supp. 488, 490 (C.D. Cal. 1995). District courts in this Circuit
24
agree that “[t]he purpose of . . . the ex parte motion papers is to establish why the
25
accompanying proposed motion for the ultimate relief requested cannot be calendared
26
in the usual manner” and “why the moving party should be allowed to go to the head
27
of the line in front of all other litigants and receive special treatment.” Mission Power
28
Engineering Co. v. Continental Cas. Co. , 883 F. Supp. 488, 492 (C.D. Cal. 1995).
1
Thus, for ex parte relief to be proper, (1) “the evidence must show that the moving
2
party’s cause will be irreparably prejudiced if the underlying motion is heard
3
according to regular noticed motion procedures”; and (2) the moving party must
4
establish that it “is without fault in creating the crisis that requires ex parte relief, or
5
that the crisis occurred as a result of excusable neglect.” Id. at 492.
6
Here, Plaintiff has moved ex parte “because a regularly-noticed [sic] motion
7
could not be heard before [Judge Matz’s] scheduled retirement date of April 1, 2013.”
8
(ECF No. 438, at 1.) This is insufficient to merit ex parte relief, and in any event, the
9
rationale is now moot. The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiff’s application. Plaintiff
10
may refile his request as a regularly noticed motion, but only after reinitiating Local
11
Rule 7-3’s meet-and-confer procedures and fully complying with both the letter and
12
spirit of that Rule.
13
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
16
March 12, 2013
17
18
19
____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?