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