AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Yeager, et al.

Filing 208

ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 8/19/15: #207 Ex Parte Application is DENIED without prejudice. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

AT&T MOBILITY LLC,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:13-cv-0007-KJM-DAD

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

GENERAL CHARLES E. “CHUCK”
YEAGER (RET.), et al.,
Defendants.

17
18

By previous order, the court set a hearing for Tuesday, August 25, 2015, at 10:00

19

a.m. and ordered General Yeager to appear and answer the court’s questions regarding his

20

competence to proceed further without representation. Order Aug. 11, 2015, at 6, ECF No. 205.

21

The court also ordered General Yeager to submit evidence of his competency for the court’s in

22

camera review by August 21, 2015. Id.

23

General Yeager and Victoria Yeager have now filed an ex parte application to

24

continue the hearing and in camera filing deadline to September 21 and 25, 2015, respectively.

25

ECF No. 207. The ex parte application lists five reasons for the request:

26

(1) General and Victoria Yeager must attend a medical appointment on August 25;

27

(2) Jerry Karnow, whom the Yeagers propose to serve as General Yeager’s guardian

28

ad litem, is unavailable on August 25;
1

1
2
3

(3) The Yeagers require more time to gather evidence of General Yeager’s
competency;
(4) The Yeagers, who represent themselves in this case, “have been inundated with

4

various court filings and deadlines” and need time to “get their affairs in order”;

5

and

6
7

(5) The Yeagers can only reach the courthouse by a 2.5-hour drive, and “Tuesdays and
Thursdays are difficult.”

8

Id. The Yeagers have submitted no declarations or other evidence to support their request.

9

In a previous order, the court summarized this district’s Local Rules and the

10

court’s standing order on the noticing and scheduling of motions and ex parte applications. See

11

Order Apr. 17, 2015, ECF No. 176 (citing E.D. Cal. L.R. 230, Standing Order, ECF No. 55-1).

12

The court cautioned that “The Yeagers’ future failures to follow local rules and this court’s

13

standing order can be expected to face appropriate sanctions, including the striking of

14

noncompliant motions and applications.” Id.

15

The court’s standing order requires ex parte applications attach an affidavit

16

including a satisfactory explanation of, among other things, “(1) the need for the issuance of such

17

an order.” Standing Order 5, ECF No. 55-1. The Yeagers’ application includes no affidavit.

18

The ex parte request is DENIED without prejudice to renewal based on reasons

19

(1), (3) and (4) above with support in the form of (1) affidavit(s) as required by the court’s

20

standing orders; (2) declarations of persons with personal knowledge of the matters asserted in

21

the application; and (3) any applicable supporting documentation. Mr. Karnow’s unavailability

22

does not provide a basis for any continuance given the purpose of the August 25 hearing, given

23

his status as a proposed guardian ad litem.

24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 19, 2015.

26
27

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28
2