Better Meat Company v. Emergy, Inc. et al
ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 5/22/23 DENYING without prejudice 137 Better Meat's motion for administrative relief. If Better Meat wishes to refile this motion, it must comply with the court's standing order before doing so. (Kastilahn, A)
Case 2:21-cv-02338-KJM-CKD Document 140 Filed 05/22/23 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
THE BETTER MEAT CO.,
EMERGY, Inc. d/b/a MEATI FOODS, PAUL
VRONSKY, and BOND CAPITAL
EMERGY, INC. d/b/a MEATI FOODS,
THE BETTER MEAT CO. and AUGUSTUS
On April 17, 2023 this court granted defendant/counter claimant Emergy’s motion to
strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute. Prior Order (Apr. 17, 2023), ECF No. 134. Emergy
then moved for attorneys’ fees and costs related to this motion. Mot. for Fees, ECF No. 136. In
response, plaintiff/counter defendant Better Meat filed a motion for administrative relief, asking
Case 2:21-cv-02338-KJM-CKD Document 140 Filed 05/22/23 Page 2 of 2
the court to stay the briefing and hearing of Emergy’s motion “until after entry of a final
judgment.” Mot. for Admin. Relief at 2, ECF No. 137.
This court’s standing order requires attorneys to meet and confer with one another before
they file motions. See Standing Order at 3, ECF No. 4-1. However, the parties’ counsel have not
met and conferred prior to the filing of this motion for administrative relief. Mot. for Admin.
Relief. In email correspondence between the parties, Better Meat’s counsel suggests this
requirement would be futile here. Ex. 1 at 2, ECF No.137–1. However, the correspondence
indicates Emergy’s counsel was willing to schedule a time to meet and confer and had “several
questions about the scope and basis of [the] motion.” Id. at 3. Instead, after one failed scheduling
attempt, Better Meat’s counsel proposed speaking with opposing counsel the day after filing the
motion; if the parties came to any agreement after the motion was filed, Better Meat would
remove the motion from the calendar “with no one worse for wear.” Id. at 2.
As discussed in detail in Mollica v. County of Sacramento, this court is “unwilling to
excuse non-compliance with its standing order.” No. 2:19-02017, 2022 WL 15053335, at *1
(E.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2022). The meet and confer requirement saves time and resources for the
court, counsel, clients and other litigants before the court. See id. Counsel’s ill-fated strategy to
file the present motion and then remove the motion only if/when the parties reached an
agreement, would, in fact, not leave “no one worse for wear.” Counsel has wasted its client’s
money, its own time and resources and the time and resources of this court.
The court denies Better Meat’s motion for administrative relief without prejudice. If
Better Meat wishes to refile this motion, it must comply with the court’s standing order before
This order resolves ECF No. 137.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 22, 2023.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?