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

Filing 91

ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 9/16/2015 DENYING 89 Ex Parte Request to Shorten Time without prejudice subject to renewal upon more specific justification. (Michel, G.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14

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

17
18
19

ORDER

Plaintiffs,

15
16

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

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

20
21
22

The State of California, acting by and through the California Department of

23

Transportation (Caltrans) and the Sacramento Regional Transit District (SacRT) has filed an ex

24

parte request to shorten the time for briefing and a hearing on its motion for leave to file a

25

supplemental complaint. The defendants, the United States Department and the Secretary of

26

Labor, oppose the ex parte request. For the following reasons, the request is DENIED.

27

Caltrans and SacRT filed the original complaint in this case in October 2013. ECF

28

No. 1. The complaint was amended in August 2014, ECF No. 59, and on December 30, 2014, the
1

1

court issued an order remanding the case to the Department of Labor for further proceedings,

2

ECF No. 81,1 and entered judgment, ECF No. 82. The defendants appealed, ECF No. 84, but

3

later moved for voluntarily dismissal of that appeal, and the dismissal was granted on August 12,

4

2015. See ECF No. 86.

5

The next day, the Department of Labor issued its decisions on remand. Ex Parte

6

App. (App.) 3, ECF No. 89; Opp’n Ex Parte App. (Opp’n) 1, ECF No. 90. On September 10,

7

2015, Caltrans and SacRT moved to enforce the court’s previous order remanding the case, ECF

8

No. 87, and moved for leave to file a supplemental complaint, ECF No. 88. Both motions were

9

noticed for hearing on October 23, 2015. The same day, Caltrans and SacRT filed an ex parte

10

application for an order shortening the time for briefing and a hearing on their motion for leave to

11

file a supplemental complaint. ECF No. 89. In support of that request, they argue any delay will

12

cause “serious harm” because delay itself is harm, see id. at 5–6, and in particular,

13

[The] Plaintiffs continue to suffer serious financial repercussions.
This includes a down-graded bond rating for Plaintiff SacRT. That
down-graded bond rating is a direct result of the uncertainty
surrounding . . . application [of the Public Employees’ Pension
Reform Act of 2013] to represented SacRT employees. In addition,
given the anticipated annual cycle of FTA grants, the harm to
Plaintiffs and other transit agencies in California is expected to
increase in the near future.

14
15
16
17
18

Kraft Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 89. The plaintiffs do not specify on what date “in the near future” they

19

expect their harm will begin to increase, in what way exactly, or by what amounts. They request

20

a hearing “on or about October 2, 2015, or the earliest date that the Court is able to hear the

21

matter.” App. at 2.

22

The defendants oppose the ex parte request, argue the plaintiffs have not

23

demonstrated any need to expedite the briefing and hearing schedule, and argue the plaintiffs

24

have not acted expeditiously. Opp’n at 2–3. They also protest that an expedited hearing schedule

25
26
1

27
28

The order is reported as California v. Dep’t of Labor, 76 F. Supp. 3d 1125 (E.D. Cal.

2014).
2

1

would prevent them from thoroughly opposing the motion. Id. at 2. They point out that the

2

plaintiffs waited about a month to file the current motions. Id. at 3.

3

This District’s Local Rules provide that “[a]pplications to shorten time shall set

4

forth by affidavit of counsel the circumstances claimed to justify the issuance of an order

5

shortening time.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 144(e). When considering such a request, courts consider

6

commonsense factors such as whether the applicant’s predicament is of its own making, whether

7

some other routine procedural mechanism would provide adequate relief, and whether an

8

expedited schedule is necessary to avoid a specific harm. See, e.g., Horne v. Wells Fargo Bank,

9

N.A., 969 F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1205 (C.D. Cal. 2013); Hanger Prosthetics & Orthotics, Inc. v.

10

Capstone Orthopedic, Inc., No. 06-02879, 2007 WL 3340935, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2007). A

11

commonly cited case suggests the applicant must show it would suffer irreparable prejudice.

12

Mission Power Eng’g Co. v. Continental Cas. Co., 883 F. Supp. 488, 492 (C.D. Cal. 1995).

13

Here, the plaintiffs have not explained why an expedited schedule is necessary in

14

anything more than general terms. The court understands the significance of a downgraded bond

15

rating, or missing a federal grant funding cycle, but cannot evaluate what harm, irreparable or

16

otherwise, the plaintiffs may face without more. The request is denied without prejudice subject

17

to renewal upon more specific justification.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: September 16, 2015.

20
21

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3