Century Surety Company v. Mo Foods, LLC et al

Filing 44

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 12/2/2013 DENYING 35 Ex Parte Application for an order shortening time. (Donati, J)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

CENTURY SURETY COMPANY, an
Ohio Corporation,
Plaintiff,

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

v.

No.

2:13-cv-01387-GEB-EFB

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE
APPLICATION

MO FOODS, LLC, a limited
liability company; MANISH
PATEL, an individual; TMPM,
LLC, a limited liability
company; PRADIP PATEL, an
individual, NEHA PATEL, an
individual; SEAN CANILOA, an
individual; RUBEN MORALES; an
individual; WAYNE PERARANDA;
an individual; DEBORAH
PENARANDA; an individual; and
PATRICK PENARANDA; an
individual,
Defendants.

Defendants filed an ex parte application for an order
shortening time, (ECF No. 35), for hearing on their motion to
stay this action. (ECF No. 38.) The request to shorten time is
premised on language in the Status Order, (ECF No. 30), which
Defendants erroneously assume dictated that Plaintiff could not
file a summary judgment motion until after Defendants filed their
motion to stay this action. The Status Order did not address this
motion filing timing issue, and, therefore, that order does not

28
1

1

support

2

Defendants also argue in a conclusory manner that if the Court

3

fails to grant Defendants’ ex parte application, “Defendants will

4

not have an opportunity to argue why this entire action should be

5

stayed in the interest of justice . . . and efficient judicial

6

administration.” (Aff. in Supp. Of Ex Parte Application ¶ 6, ECF

7

No. 36.) However, Defendants have delayed in seeking a stay and

8

have not shown that they are without any other option. Therefore,

9

the ex parte application is DENIED.

10

granting

Dated:

the

order

shortening

December 2, 2013

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

time

Defendant

seeks.