Bernard Huang et al v. Ebay Inc. et al

Filing 19

ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: denying 16 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Shorten Time for Hearing. (See order for details). (shb)

Download PDF
1 2 O 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 BERNARD HUANG, an individual California resident, on behalf of themselves and all others simlarly situated; ED KIM, an individual California resident, on behalf of themselves and all others simlarly situated, 15 Plaintiffs, 16 v. 17 18 EBAY, INC., a Delaware corporation; INTUIT INC., a Delaware corporation , 19 20 Defendants. ___________________________ 21 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CV 15-05722 DDP (AGRx) ORDER DENYING EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SHORTEN TIME TO HEARING [Dkt. No. 16] Defendants have filed a properly noticed motion to change 22 venue, set for hearing on Sept. 14, 2015, on the ground that there 23 is a similar case pending in the Northern District of California. 24 (Dkt. No. 13.) 25 to shorten the time to the hearing. 26 briefing schedule as follows: Motion to be heard on Aug. 24; 27 Plaintiff’s opposition due on Aug. 14; Defendant’s reply due Aug. 28 20. (Id.) Defendants have now filed an ex parte application (Dkt. No. 16.) They propose a 1 An ex parte application will only be granted for good cause, 2 and only if the evidence shows that “the moving party's cause will 3 be irreparably prejudiced if the underlying motion is heard 4 according to regular noticed motion procedures,” and that “the 5 moving party is without fault in creating the crisis that requires 6 ex parte relief, or that the crisis occurred as a result of 7 excusable neglect.” 8 883 F. Supp. 488, 492 (C.D. Cal. 1995). 9 Mission Power Eng'g Co. v. Cont'l Cas. Co., Here, Defendants have not made the case that their cause will 10 be irreparably prejudiced if the motion to change venue is not 11 heard until Sept. 14. 12 motion to dismiss and that it would be a duplication of effort and 13 a waste of judicial resources for the Court to consider a motion to 14 dismiss when the case might be transferred soon. 15 Defendants have not yet filed the motion to dismiss, and any motion 16 they do file will not be set for hearing until after the motion to 17 change venue. 18 if the motion to change venue is successful, the Court will not 19 consider the motion to dismiss. 20 Defendants assert that they will soon file a However, The Court’s resources will therefore be conserved; Defendants’ ex parte application is DENIED. 21 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 26 Dated: August 20, 2015 DEAN D. PREGERSON United States District Judge 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?