Courthouse News Service v. Michael Planet

Filing 13

OPPOSITION to EX PARTE APPLICATION to Continue Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction from November 7, 2011 to January 17, 2012 #12 filed by Plaintiff Courthouse News Service. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Matteo-Boehm, Rachel)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Rachel Matteo-Boehm (SBN 195492)
[e-mail]
David Greene (SBN 160107)
[e-mail]
Leila C. Knox (SBN 245999)
[e-mail]
HOLME ROBERTS & OWEN LLP
560 Mission Street, Suite 250
San Francisco, CA 94105-2994
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
COURTHOUSE NEWS SERVICE

11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
WESTERN DIVISION

12
13
14

Courthouse News Service,

15
Plaintiff,

16
17
18
19

v.
Michael D. Planet, in his official capacity
as Court Executive Officer/Clerk of the
Ventura County Superior Court.

CASE NO. CV11-08083 R (MANx)
[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING
DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE
APPLICATION FOR ORDER
CONTINUING HEARING ON
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION

20
Defendant.

21
22

Courtroom: 8 (2nd Floor)
The Hon. Manuel L. Real

23
24

The Court, having considered Defendant Michael D. Planet’s October 10, 2011

25

ex parte application for an order continuing Plaintiff Courthouse News Service’s

26

Motion for Preliminary Injunction, currently scheduled to be heard on November 7,

27

2011, hereby DENIES the ex parte application.

28

1
[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
#74597 v1 saf

Case No. CV11-08083R (MANx)

1

The Court’s decision is based on the following findings of fact and conclusions

2

of law:

3

Findings of Fact:

4
5
6

1.

The defenses that Defendant seeks to raise in its Motion to Dismiss can

be adequately raised in its opposition to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
2.

It would be inefficient and a waste of both the parties’ and the Court’s

7

resources to delay the pending Motion for Preliminary Injunction in order to first hear

8

and fully adjudicate a separate Motion to Dismiss.

9

Conclusions of Law:

10

1.

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges a deprivation of its and its subscriber’s First

11

Amendment rights. As such, Plaintiff is entitled to a prompt hearing on the

12

appropriateness of preliminary injunctive relief, and an assessment of whether the

13

ongoing deprivation of such rights should be permitted pending a final resolution of

14

this matter.

15
16

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s ex parte application is therefore
DENIED.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Dated: _______________

24
25

_____________________________
The Honorable Manuel L. Real
United States District Judge

26
27
28

2
[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
#74597 v1 saf

Case No. CV11-08083R (MANx)