Kristine M. Rodas v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc. et al

Filing 80

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) Order DENYING Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez: denying 61 EX PARTE APPLICATION: For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's application is DENIED. (see document for further details) (bm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV14-3747 PSG (MRWx)

Title

Kristine M. Rodas v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc., et al.

Present: The Honorable

Date

January 4, 2016

Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District Judge

Wendy Hernandez

Not Reported

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s):

Attorneys Present for Defendant(s):

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings (In Chambers):

Order DENYING Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application

This case was removed to federal court on May 15, 2014. The parties have already
litigated two motions to dismiss, which were both denied in part and granted in part. See Dkt. #
20, 37. Trial is set for May 3, 2016. See Dkt. # 56. On December 18, 2015 Plaintiff filed an ex
parte application seeking to have the case remanded to California Superior Court on the basis of
abstention. Dkt. # 59.
The Court denied the ex parte application on December 21, 2015. See Dkt. # 60. In
doing so, the Court articulated the standard used by this circuit to assess applications for ex parte
relief. See id. To justify ex parte relief, the moving party must establish (1) that its cause will be
irreparably prejudiced if the motion is heard according to regularly noticed procedures; and (2)
that the moving party is without fault in creating the crisis that requires ex parte relief, or that the
crisis occurred as a result of excusable neglect. Mission Power Engineering Co. v. Continental
Casualty Co., 883 F.Supp. 488, 492 (C.D. Cal. 1995).
Plaintiff filed another ex parte application on December 28, 2015, again seeking to have
the case remanded, stayed, or to allow Plaintiff to dismiss the action without prejudice. See Dkt.
# 61. Plaintiff asks the Court for ex parte relief because she contends that by insisting on taking
a deposition, Defendant’s counsel has “placed [her] in the untenable position of having to front
$38,000.00” for a case that “should be back in state court.” Id. at 5.
Plaintiff has still not explained how her legal cause will be irreparably damaged if the
motion is heard according to regularly noticed procedures. That Plaintiff will have to front her
legal bills does not “show why [she] should be allowed to go to the head of the line in front of all
other litigants and receive special treatment.” Mission Power, 883 F. Supp. at 492. This Court’s
standing order specifies that ex parte applications are solely for extraordinary relief and should
be used with discretion, see Standing Order ¶ 10, and disputes over discovery do not warrant
CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV14-3747 PSG (MRWx)

Date

Title

January 4, 2016

Kristine M. Rodas v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc., et al.

such extraordinary relief. Plaintiff is reminded that further abuse of the ex parte process will
result in sanctions. See id.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s application is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2