Roadrunner Intermodal Services, LLC v. T.G.S. Transportation, Inc.

Filing 40

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 34 Exparte Application to Shorten Time for a Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/13/2017. (The parties are directed to the briefing schedule outlined in Local Rule 78-230 with respect to plaintiffs pending motion for preliminary injunction, which will be heard before this court on November 7, 2017.) (Gaumnitz, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

ROADRUNNER INTERMODAL
SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company,

13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiff,
v.

No.: 1:17-cv-01056-DAD-BAM

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE
APPLICATION TO SHORTEN TIME FOR A
HEARING ON MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

T.G.S. TRANSPORTATION, INC., a
California corporation, and DOES 1-10,
Defendants.

(Doc. No. 34.)

18
19

On October 9, 2017, plaintiff Roadrunner Intermodal Services, LLC (“plaintiff”) filed a

20

motion for preliminary injunction. (Doc. No. 32.) The following day, plaintiff filed an ex parte

21

application for an order shortening time for a hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction.

22

(Doc. No. 34.) Defendant opposes this application for an order shortening time (Doc. No. 35),

23

and plaintiff has replied to the opposition. (Doc. No. 37.) Finally, defendant filed an objection to

24

plaintiff’s reply. (Doc. No. 38.) In moving for an order shortening time, plaintiff requests that

25

the court set the hearing on its motion for preliminary injunction for October 17, 2017, or any

26

date the court is available to hear argument. Currently, the scheduled hearing date for both

27

plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 34) and defendant’s motion to consolidate

28

cases (Doc. No. 30) is November 7, 2017.
1

1

Ex parte applications to shorten time require a satisfactory explanation of the

2

circumstances claimed to justify the issuance of such an order. Local Rule 6-144(e). Courts

3

generally require that such applications demonstrate circumstances showing that the applicant is

4

not the cause of its own predicament and the order is necessary to avoid some type of irreparable

5

harm. See Hanger Prosthetics & Orthotics, Inc. v. Capstone Orthopedic, Inc., No. 206-CV-

6

02879-GEB-KJM, 2007 WL 3340935, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2007). The court has reviewed

7

plaintiff’s ex parte application and finds that it does not establish that an order shortening time on

8

its motion for preliminary injunction is necessary to avoid some type of irreparable harm.

9

Though plaintiff claims that it will suffer “significant irreparable harm occasioned by TGS’s

10

ongoing conduct,” it does not specify an impending event that will cause irreversible damage to

11

warrant expediting the briefing schedule and hearing on its motion for a preliminary injunction.

12

(Doc. No. 34 at 7.) Rather, plaintiff’s application is based on arguments regarding a potential

13

financial loss, which may ultimately be remedied through awarding damages if plaintiff’s

14

allegations prove to be meritorious.

15

Accordingly, plaintiff’s ex parte application for an order shortening time (Doc. No. 34) is

16

denied. The parties are directed to the briefing schedule outlined in Local Rule 78-230 with

17

respect to plaintiff’s pending motion for preliminary injunction, which will be heard before this

18

court on November 7, 2017.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

Dated:

October 13, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2