State of California v. United States Department of Labor et al

Filing 69

ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 9/18/14: Ex parte application 65 is granted. ATU will not participate in argument on September 30, but may make itself available should the court have questions for it. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting by and
through the CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION; and
SACRAMENTO REGIONAL TRANSIT
DISTRICT,

14

No. 2:13-cv-02069-KJM-DAD

ORDER

Plaintiffs,
15
v.
16
17
18

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR; and THOMAS E. PEREZ, in his
official capacity as SECRETARY OF
LABOR,

19

Defendants.

20
This case is set on the court’s calendar of September 30, 2014 for argument on the

21
22

parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment and on defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’

23

spending clause claim.
On January 14, 2014, the court granted the application filed by Amalgamated

24
25

Transit Union (ATU) for leave to file an amicus curiae brief in support of defendants’ motion.

26

ECF No. 17. ATU filed a memorandum in support of defendants’ original motion to dismiss,

27

ECF No. 25, and also one in opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. ECF

28

No. 60.
1

ATU has now filed an ex parte application for leave to participate in oral

1
2

argument, set for September 30 at 10:00 a.m. ECF No. 65. Plaintiffs have opposed, saying the

3

request is improperly made ex parte and that they will be prejudiced by ATU’s participation in

4

argument. ECF No. 66. In reply, ATU reiterates that its “long and deep experience in Section

5

13(c) matters” may assist the court in resolving the issues before it on summary judgment. ECF

6

No. 67.

7

Plaintiffs are correct that ex parte applications are disfavored, see Dugan v. Cnty.

8

of Los Angeles, No. 2:11–cv–08145–CAS–SHx, 2014 WL 2986480, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jul. 2,

9

2014), but ATU’s offer to make itself available for questions during argument on the pending

10

motions does not fit neatly within the definition of a “motion” to be calendared. See Melendez v.

11

United States, 518 U.S. 120, 126 (1996) (“[T]he term ‘motion’ generally means ‘[a]n application

12

made to a court or judge for purpose of obtaining a rule or order directing some act to be done in

13

favor of the applicant.’”) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 1013 (6th ed. 1990)). By filing its

14

application, ATU is saying only that it will make itself available for questions, but is not insisting

15

it be allowed to argue.

16

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

17

1. ATU’s ex parte application, ECF No. 65, is granted; and

18

2. ATU will not participate in argument on September 30, but may make itself

19

available should the court have questions for it.

20

DATED: September 18, 2014.

21
22
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
23
24
25
26
27
28
2