Roadrunner Intermodal Services, LLC v. T.G.S. Transportation, Inc.
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware limited
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE
APPLICATION TO SHORTEN TIME FOR A
HEARING ON MOTION FOR
T.G.S. TRANSPORTATION, INC., a
California corporation, and DOES 1-10,
(Doc. No. 34.)
On October 9, 2017, plaintiff Roadrunner Intermodal Services, LLC (“plaintiff”) filed a
motion for preliminary injunction. (Doc. No. 32.) The following day, plaintiff filed an ex parte
application for an order shortening time for a hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction.
(Doc. No. 34.) Defendant opposes this application for an order shortening time (Doc. No. 35),
and plaintiff has replied to the opposition. (Doc. No. 37.) Finally, defendant filed an objection to
plaintiff’s reply. (Doc. No. 38.) In moving for an order shortening time, plaintiff requests that
the court set the hearing on its motion for preliminary injunction for October 17, 2017, or any
date the court is available to hear argument. Currently, the scheduled hearing date for both
plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 34) and defendant’s motion to consolidate
cases (Doc. No. 30) is November 7, 2017.
Ex parte applications to shorten time require a satisfactory explanation of the
circumstances claimed to justify the issuance of such an order. Local Rule 6-144(e). Courts
generally require that such applications demonstrate circumstances showing that the applicant is
not the cause of its own predicament and the order is necessary to avoid some type of irreparable
harm. See Hanger Prosthetics & Orthotics, Inc. v. Capstone Orthopedic, Inc., No. 206-CV-
02879-GEB-KJM, 2007 WL 3340935, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2007). The court has reviewed
plaintiff’s ex parte application and finds that it does not establish that an order shortening time on
its motion for preliminary injunction is necessary to avoid some type of irreparable harm.
Though plaintiff claims that it will suffer “significant irreparable harm occasioned by TGS’s
ongoing conduct,” it does not specify an impending event that will cause irreversible damage to
warrant expediting the briefing schedule and hearing on its motion for a preliminary injunction.
(Doc. No. 34 at 7.) Rather, plaintiff’s application is based on arguments regarding a potential
financial loss, which may ultimately be remedied through awarding damages if plaintiff’s
allegations prove to be meritorious.
Accordingly, plaintiff’s ex parte application for an order shortening time (Doc. No. 34) is
denied. The parties are directed to the briefing schedule outlined in Local Rule 78-230 with
respect to plaintiff’s pending motion for preliminary injunction, which will be heard before this
court on November 7, 2017.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
October 13, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?