In Re: Charles Jeannel

Filing 10

ORDER DENYING EMERGENCY MOTION by Judge Andrew J. Guilford:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV-2996 AG

Title

CHARLES JEANNEL v. INDEPENDENCE BANK

Present: The
Honorable

Date

April 9, 2012

ANDREW J. GUILFORD

Lisa Bredahl
Deputy Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Proceedings:

[IN CHAMBERS] ORDER DENYING EMERGENCY
MOTION
Late in the afternoon of April 9, 2012, the Court received what purports to be an
“Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Appeal” (“Emergency Motion”). A title page was
accompanied by a mass of other documents, filed in four separate docket entries, without
explanation. (Dkt Nos. 6-9.) For many reasons, the filing provides inadequate support
for the requested relief. See, e.g., Mission Power Eng’g Co. v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 883 F.
Supp. 488, 490 (C.D. Cal. 1995) (finding that “ex Parte motions are rarely justified”);
Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 80-82 (1972) (due process requires that affected parties
“are entitled to be heard” following “meaningful” notice, except in “extraordinary
situations”); Sniadach v. Family Fin. Corp. of Bay View, 395 U.S. 337, 339-40 (1969)
(“the right to be heard has little reality or worth unless one is informed that the matter is
pending and can choose for himself whether to appear or default, acquiesce or contest”).
The Emergency Motion is DENIED.
:
Initials of
Preparer

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 1

lmb

0