Better Meat Company v. Emergy, Inc. et al

Filing 140

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
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

THE BETTER MEAT CO.,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,

EMERGY, Inc. d/b/a MEATI FOODS, PAUL
VRONSKY, and BOND CAPITAL
MANAGEMENT LP.,
Defendants.

17

EMERGY, INC. d/b/a MEATI FOODS,
Counter Claimant,

19
20
21
22

ORDER

v.

16

18

No. 2:21-cv-02338-KJM-CKD

v.
THE BETTER MEAT CO. and AUGUSTUS
PATTILLO,
Counter Defendants.

23
24
25

On April 17, 2023 this court granted defendant/counter claimant Emergy’s motion to

26

strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute. Prior Order (Apr. 17, 2023), ECF No. 134. Emergy

27

then moved for attorneys’ fees and costs related to this motion. Mot. for Fees, ECF No. 136. In

28

response, plaintiff/counter defendant Better Meat filed a motion for administrative relief, asking
1

Case 2:21-cv-02338-KJM-CKD Document 140 Filed 05/22/23 Page 2 of 2
1

the court to stay the briefing and hearing of Emergy’s motion “until after entry of a final

2

judgment.” Mot. for Admin. Relief at 2, ECF No. 137.

3

This court’s standing order requires attorneys to meet and confer with one another before

4

they file motions. See Standing Order at 3, ECF No. 4-1. However, the parties’ counsel have not

5

met and conferred prior to the filing of this motion for administrative relief. Mot. for Admin.

6

Relief. In email correspondence between the parties, Better Meat’s counsel suggests this

7

requirement would be futile here. Ex. 1 at 2, ECF No.137–1. However, the correspondence

8

indicates Emergy’s counsel was willing to schedule a time to meet and confer and had “several

9

questions about the scope and basis of [the] motion.” Id. at 3. Instead, after one failed scheduling

10

attempt, Better Meat’s counsel proposed speaking with opposing counsel the day after filing the

11

motion; if the parties came to any agreement after the motion was filed, Better Meat would

12

remove the motion from the calendar “with no one worse for wear.” Id. at 2.

13

As discussed in detail in Mollica v. County of Sacramento, this court is “unwilling to

14

excuse non-compliance with its standing order.” No. 2:19-02017, 2022 WL 15053335, at *1

15

(E.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2022). The meet and confer requirement saves time and resources for the

16

court, counsel, clients and other litigants before the court. See id. Counsel’s ill-fated strategy to

17

file the present motion and then remove the motion only if/when the parties reached an

18

agreement, would, in fact, not leave “no one worse for wear.” Counsel has wasted its client’s

19

money, its own time and resources and the time and resources of this court.

20

The court denies Better Meat’s motion for administrative relief without prejudice. If

21

Better Meat wishes to refile this motion, it must comply with the court’s standing order before

22

doing so.

23

This order resolves ECF No. 137.

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25

DATED: May 22, 2023.

2