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