Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians et al v. Crosby et al

Filing 81

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 7/10/15: Plaintiffs' 77 Ex Parte Application for an OST is DENIED. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

PASKENTA BAND OF NOMLAKI
INDIANS; and PASKENTA
ENTERPRISES CORPORATION,

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Plaintiffs,

22
23
24

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ EX
PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER
SHORTENING TIME

v.
INES CROSBY; JOHN CROSBY;
LESLIE LOHSE; LARRY LOHSE;
TED PATA; JUAN PATA; CHRIS
PATA; SHERRY MYERS; FRANK
JAMES; UMPQUA BANK; UMPQUA
HOLDINGS CORPORATION;
CORNERSTONE COMMUNITY BANK;
CORNERSTONE COMMUNITY
BANCORP; JEFFERY FINCK; GARTH
MOORE; HARTH MOORE INSURANCE
AND FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.;
ASSOCIATED PENSION
CONSULTANTS, INC.; HANESS &
ASSOCIATES, LLC; ROBERT M.
HANESS; THE PATRIOT GOLD &
SILVER EXCHANGE, INC. and
NORMAN R. RYAN,

20
21

No. 2:15-cv-00538-GEB-CMK

Defendants,
SILVER QUICKEN LOANS, INC.;
CRP 111 WEST 141ST LLC;
CASTELLAN MANAGING MEMBER
LLC; CRP WEST 168TH STREET
LLC; and CRP SHERMAN AVENUE
LLC,
Nominal
Defendants.

25
26
27
28

On
application

July
for

an

9,

2015,

order

Plaintiffs

shortening
1

time

filed

an

(“OST”)

ex

parte

seeking

an

1

accelerated hearing on their motion for a preliminary injunction

2

(“PI”), which is currently noticed for hearing on July 27, 2015.

3

(Pls.’ Appl. OST, ECF No. 77.) Plaintiffs seek in the PI motion

4

an order freezing certain Defendants’ assets during the pendency

5

of this lawsuit. (See Pls.’ Mot. PI, ECF No. 72.) Plaintiffs

6

“request acceleration of th[e] hearing date” on their PI motion,

7

contending they learned two days after filing the motion that

8

Defendant Crosby has attempted to sell property that is involved

9

in the PI motion, specifically a sports car. (Pls.’ Appl. OST

10

1:10-12; see also Decl. Andrew Purdy & 2, ECF No. 77-1.)

11

Defendants John Crosby, Ines Crosby, Leslie Lohse, and

12

Larry

Lohse

13

application,

14

supports an order shortening time does not exist.” (Defs.’ Opp’n

15

2:8-9,

16

Defendant Crosby in support of their opposition, in which he

17

avers that as of “July 2, 2015, [he has] made no further efforts

18

to sell the [referenced sports] car, and [he is] not going to

19

sell the car until at least after the preliminary injunction

20

motion is decided.” (Decl. John Crosby & 4, ECF No. 78-1.)

ECF

(collectively
rejoining

No.

78.)

“the

“Defendants”)
emergency

Defendants

oppose

that

submit

the

Plaintiffs

the

OST
claim

Declaration

of

21

Local Rule 144(e) prescribes, in relevant part, that

22

“[e]x parte applications to shorten time will not be granted

23

except

24

explanation for the need for the issuance of such an order.”

25

(emphasis added). Absent a sufficient showing concerning “the

26

circumstances

27

shortening

28

motion should not be disregarded. Id. Plaintiffs have not shown

upon

affidavit

claimed

time,”

the

of

to

counsel

justify

prescribed

2

showing

the
manner

a

issuance
for

satisfactory

of

handling

an

order

law

and

1

sufficient explanation for the need of the issuance of an OST.

2

Therefore, Plaintiffs’ application for an OST is DENIED.

3

Dated:

July 10, 2015

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3