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)

Download PDF
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?