Becker et al v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, Inc. et al

Filing 65

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 9/1/11 ORDERING plaintiff's ex parte motion 61 is denied without prejudice. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

DENNLY R. BECKER; THE BECKER
TRUST DATED MARCH 25, 1991,

11
12
13

Plaintiffs,

No. 2:10-cv-02799 LKK KJN PS

v.

14

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., INC.; et al.

15

Defendants.

ORDER
/

16
17

Dennly Becker (“Becker”) and the Becker Trust Dated March 25, 1991 (“Becker

18

Trust”) (collectively, “plaintiff”1), proceeding without counsel in this action2, filed an Ex Parte

19

Motion For Leave To File Amended Complaint on August 29, 2011. (Dkt. No. 61)

20

Plaintiff’s ex parte motion (Dkt. No. 61) is denied without prejudice. The ex parte

21

motion does not comply with the court’s Local Rules. Local Rule 144(e) provides: “Ex parte

22

applications to shorten time will not be granted except upon affidavit of counsel showing a

23
1

24

The undersigned treats Becker and the Becker Trust as a singular plaintiff because, as
discussed in the court’s order dated December 13, 2010 (Dkt. No. 21), Becker is the sole
beneficiary of the Becker Trust.

25
2

26

This matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District Local Rule
302(c)(21).
1

1

satisfactory explanation for the need for the issuance of such an order and for the failure of

2

counsel to obtain a stipulation for the issuance of such an order from other counsel or parties in

3

the action.” Plaintiff’s ex parte motion does not contain an explanation, let alone a “satisfactory

4

explanation,” for plaintiff’s failure to obtain a stipulation from defendant regarding a need to

5

resolve plaintiff’s motion on anything other than the standard notice period stated in the Local

6

Rules governing typical law and motion matters. Local Rule 230(b). The undersigned cannot

7

ascertain from plaintiff’s motion whether plaintiff even attempted to obtain a stipulation from

8

defendant.

9

No trial dates or related deadlines have yet been set in this matter. Accordingly,

10

there is no time constraint which would dictate having plaintiff’s motion heard on shortened

11

time. Moreover, the court’s electronic docket reflects that plaintiff has since filed a Motion To

12

Amend Complaint (Dkt. No. 62), which is substantially similar to plaintiff’s ex parte motion but

13

is set to be heard in accordance with the notice period stated in the Local Rules governing typical

14

law and motion matters. Local Rule 230(b).

15
16
17
18

For all these reasons, plaintiff’s ex parte motion (Dkt. No. 61) is denied without
prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: September 1, 2011

19
20
21

_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
2