Larson v. Harman-Management Corporation et al
Filing
113
ORDER Granting Ex Parte Motion to Shorten Time for Defendant Harman Management Corporation's Renewed Motion to Stay Action, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/5/2018. (HMC's ex parte 105 application for an order shortening tim e is granted, and the hearing for the 108 motion to stay is set for 2/15/2018 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 5 (DAD) before District Judge Dale A. Drozd. Oppositions to the motion to stay are due by 2/9/2018. HMC's reply, if any, is due by 2/12/2018.)(Gaumnitz, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
CORY LARSON, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
15
No. 1:16-cv-00219-DAD-SKO
HARMAN MANAGEMENT
CORPORATION; 3SEVENTY, INC.,
16
Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE MOTION
TO SHORTEN TIME FOR DEFENDANT
HARMAN MANAGEMENT
CORPORATION’S RENEWED MOTION TO
STAY ACTION
(Doc. No. 105.)
17
18
On February 1, 2018, defendant Harman Management Corporation (“HMC”) filed a
19
20
renewed1 motion to stay all proceedings in this action pending the resolution of a series of
21
consolidated appeals currently before the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
22
that it contends will likely control resolution of key issues in this action. (Doc. No. 108.) On the
23
same day, HMC also filed an ex parte application for an order shortening time for notice of the
24
objection deadline2 and hearing on its renewed motion to stay the action. (Doc. No. 105.)
25
1
26
27
28
HMC previously filed a motion to stay proceedings in this action on June 8, 2017 (Doc. No.
64), which this court denied without prejudice (Doc. No. 73.).
2
The court presumes that defendant HMC is referring to the time for the filing of any opposition
to the motion to stay by this reference.
1
1
Neither plaintiff Cory Larson (“plaintiff”) nor defendant 3Seventy, Inc. (“3Seventy”) has
2
responded to HMC’s ex parte application. In moving for an order shortening time, HMC requests
3
that the court set the hearing on its motion to stay prior to February 19, 2018. (Id. at 2.)
4
Ex parte applications to shorten time require a satisfactory explanation of the
5
circumstances claimed to justify the issuance of such an order. Local Rule 6-144(e). Courts
6
generally require that an application for order shortening time demonstrate that the applicant is
7
not the cause of its own predicament and the order is necessary to avoid some type of harm. See
8
Hanger Prosthetics & Orthotics, Inc. v. Capstone Orthopedic, Inc., No. 206-CV-02879-GEB-
9
KJM, 2007 WL 3340935, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2007). The court has reviewed HMC’s ex
10
parte application and finds that it provides the required explanation. The basis of HMC’s
11
renewed motion for stay was allegedly learned through expert discovery, which recently closed
12
on January 26, 2018. (Doc. Nos. 88, 105.) HMC contends that an expedited schedule on its
13
renewed motion to stay is warranted because if a stay is granted, the parties will be relieved from
14
filing oppositions to plaintiff’s pending class certification motion (Doc. No. 98) and defendant
15
3Seventy’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 101), both of which are currently scheduled
16
for a hearing on March 6, 2018. The court has no basis upon which to conclude that the other
17
parties to this action would be prejudiced by an order shortening time for hearing on defendant
18
HMC’s renewed motion for a stay.
19
Accordingly, HMC’s ex parte application for an order shortening time (Doc. No. 105) is
20
granted, and the hearing for the motion to stay (Doc. No. 108) is set for February 15, 2018.
21
Oppositions to the motion to stay are due by February 9, 2018. HMC’s reply, if any, is due by
22
February 12, 2018.
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
Dated:
February 5, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
25
26
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?