Cooperative Regions of Organic Producer Pools v. Stueve's Certified Organic Dairy et al

Filing 14

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 7/29/2014 ORDERING that since plaintiff's 12 proposed order does not evince compliance with Local Rule 144(e), the proposed order will not be signed. (Waggoner, D)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

COOPERATIVE REGIONS OF
ORGANIC PRODUCER POOLS, a
Wisconsin Stock Cooperative,

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiff,

No. 1:14-cv-01123 GEB SKO

ORDER

v.
STUEVE’S CERTIFIED ORGANIC
DAIRY, a California business
entity of unknown form; LLOYD
L. STUEVE, individually and
doing business as Stueve’s
Certified Organic Dairy;
GAGE STUEVE, individually and
doing business as Stueve’s
Certified Organic Dairy; and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants.

18
19

On July 28, 2014, Plaintiff filed a document entitled

20

“Proposed Order Re Expedited Preliminary Injunction Proceedings,”

21

seeking a preliminary injunction hearing on an expedited schedule

22

and requesting that its motion for a temporary restraining order

23

(“TRO”) be construed as a motion for a preliminary injunction.

24

(ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff also sent an email communication to the

25

Court deputy clerk, “request[ing] that the Court hear the matter

26

on an expedited basis on Friday, August 1, 2014, or as soon

27

thereafter as possible.” (See Appendix 1.)

28

Plaintiff’s motion for a TRO was denied on July 25,
1

1

2014, since

2

Plaintiff ha[d] not explained why it did not
seek injunctive relief earlier. This failure
of explanation for Plaintiff’s three-week
delay in seeking a TRO implie[d] that, under
the
circumstances,
its
delay
ha[d]
contributed to part of the irreparable injury
it aver[red] it [was] enduring, and that it
should proceed by an expedited preliminary
injunction proceeding, rather than an ex
parte TRO proceeding.

3
4
5
6
7
8

(ECF No. 10.) However, Plaintiff’s proposed order does not evince

9

compliance with Local Rule 144(e), which prescribes, in pertinent

10

part:

11

16

Applications to shorten time shall set forth
by affidavit of counsel the circumstances
claimed to justify the issuance of an order
shortening time. Ex parte applications to
shorten time will not be granted except upon
affidavit of counsel showing a satisfactory
explanation for the need for the issuance of
such an order and for the failure of counsel
to obtain a stipulation for the issuance of
such an order from other counsel or parties
in the action.

17

Communication with opposing “counsel or parties in the

18

action” should include any proposed briefing schedule and hearing

19

date.

20

this Local Rule, the proposed order will not be signed.

21

Dated:

12
13
14
15

L.R. 144(e). Since Plaintiff has not shown compliance with

July 29, 2014

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Appendix 1

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3