Akila Trading (pty), Ltd. v. Global Commodities Trading Group, Inc.

Filing 13

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 9/24/14 ORDERING for these reasons, plaintiff's ex parte application for an order shortening time is denied. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

AKILA TRADING (PTY), LTD.,

12
13
14
15
16
17

No. 2:14-cv-1625-KJM-AC

Plaintiff,
v.
GLOBAL COMMODITIES TRADING
GROUP, INC.,

ORDER

Defendant.
This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s September 22, 2013, ex parte application for

18

an order shortening time in which to hear its motion for default judgment. ECF No. 12. In its

19

application, plaintiff argues that “[s]ince Global is not expected to respond to the Complaint or

20

the Motion for Default Judgment, there is no reason to delay a hearing on Akila’s Motion for

21

Default Judgment. ECF No. 12-1 at 2. The court has considered plaintiff’s argument and now

22

DENIES its ex parte application.

23

Local Rule 144(e) states:

24
25
26
27
28

Shortening Time. Applications to shorten time shall set forth by
affidavit of counsel the circumstances claimed to justify the
issuance of an order shortening time. Ex parte applications to
shorten time will not be granted except upon affidavit of counsel
showing a satisfactory explanation for the need for the issuance of
such an order and for the failure of counsel to obtain a stipulation
for the issuance of such an order from other counsel or parties in the
action. Stipulations for the issuance of an order shortening time
require the approval of the Judge or Magistrate Judge on whose
1

1
2

calendar the matter is to be heard before such stipulations are given
effect. Any proposed order shortening time shall include blanks for
the Court to designate a time and date for the hearing and for the
filing of any response to the motion.

3
4

“Ex parte motions are rarely justified.” Mission Power Eng’g Co. v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 883

5

F. Supp. 488, 490 (C.D. Cal. 1995). To justify ex parte relief, “the evidence must show that the

6

moving party’s cause will be irreparably prejudiced if the underlying motion is heard according to

7

regular noticed motion procedures. . . . [and] it must be established that the moving party is

8

without fault in creating the crisis that requires ex parte relief, or that the crisis occurred as a

9

result of excusable neglect.” Id. at 492.

10

Here, plaintiff’s application is procedurally defective. First, plaintiff has failed to set forth

11

a “satisfactory explanation for the need for the issuance of such an order.” Id. The court does not

12

consider the fact that defendant is unlikely to oppose plaintiff’s motion to be a satisfactory

13

explanation for the shortening of time. Nor can the court say that plaintiff’s cause will be

14

irreparably prejudiced if its motion for default judgment is not heard on a shortened schedule. In

15

fact, plaintiff’s argument seems to be that defendant will not be prejudiced by the shortening of

16

time because it will not respond regardless of how much time it is given. This does not help

17

plaintiff establish that it will be prejudiced if its motion is not heard on a shortened schedule.

18

Plaintiff’s argument merely helps establish that defendant will not be prejudiced if the court

19

grants plaintiff’s application, which is not sufficient under Rule 144(e).

20

For these reasons, plaintiff’s ex parte application for an order shortening time is denied.

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22

DATED: September 24, 2014

23
24
25
26
27
28
2