Ellis et al v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. et al

Filing 27

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION. Order to Show Cause Hearing set for Friday, 5/3/2013 09:01 AM. Show Cause Response due by Monday, 4/22/2013. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 4/19/13. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/19/2013)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7
8

DIANA ELLIS, JAMES SCHILLINGER, and
RONALD LAZAR, individually and on behalf
of other members of the general public
similarly situated,

Case No.: 12-cv-03897-YGR
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING
PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION

9

Plaintiffs,

10
11

Northern District of California

United States District Court

12
13

vs.
J.P. MORGAN CHASE & CO., J.P.
MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., and
CHASE HOME FINANCE LLC,

14

Defendants.
15
16
17

Plaintiffs have filed an Ex Parte Application for Leave to File Supplemental Request for

18

Judicial Notice in Opposition to Chase Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint Pursuant

19

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). (Dkt. No. 25.) In filing this Ex Parte Application, Plaintiffs have violated

20

several Local Rules.

21

Civ. L.R. 7-3(d) explicitly states that “[o]nce a reply is filed, no additional memoranda, papers

22

or letters may be filed without prior Court approval,” with certain exceptions. The only permitted

23

filings are (1) an objection to reply evidence and (2) a statement of recent decision. Plaintiffs’ Ex

24

Parte Application falls into neither category. Even if the Court were to construe the application as a

25

statement of recent decision, Civ. L.R. 7-3(d)(2) explicitly prohibits the inclusion of further argument

26

on the fully-briefed motion. Indeed, the Court has already stricken Plaintiffs’ brief at Dkt. No. 20

27

because counsel provided additional argument in violation of the Local Rules. The Court informed

28

1

counsel at the November 6, 2012 hearing that such additional argument is not appropriate under the

2

rules.

3

Civ. L.R. 7-10 (regarding Ex Parte Motions) further provides that an ex parte motion may be

4

filed “only if a statute, Federal Rule, local rule or Standing Order authorizes the filing of an ex parte

5

motion in the circumstances and the party has complied with the applicable provisions allowing the

6

party to approach the Court on an ex parte basis. The motion must include a citation to the statute,

7

rule or order which permits the use of an ex parte motion to obtain the relief sought.” Plaintiffs have

8

failed to identify any statute, federal rule, local rule, or standing order that authorizes their Ex Parte

9

Application or the additional argument contained therein.1
Plaintiffs’ counsel, Roland Tellis, is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why he should not be

10

Northern District of California

sanctioned for failure to follow the Local Rules as discussed herein and the explicit statement of the

12
United States District Court

11

Court at the November 6, 2012 hearing.

13

A hearing on this Order to Show Cause shall be held on Friday, May 3, 2013 on the Court’s

14

9:01 a.m. calendar. Counsel must file a written response to this Order to Show Cause no later than

15

April 22, 2013 explaining counsel’s failure to comply with the above rules, as well as certifying that

16

he has personally read and understands the Civil Local Rules regarding Motion Practice. Plaintiffs’

17

counsel must personally appear at the hearing. If the Court is satisfied with Plaintiffs’ counsel’s

18

written response, it will consider taking the Order to Show Cause hearing off calendar.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20
21

Dated: April 19, 2013

___________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26

To the extent that Plaintiffs imply that Civ. L-R 7-3(d) authorizes the filing, that argument fails for
the reasons stated above. Plaintiffs also imply that Civ. L.R. 7-1(a)(3) authorizes parties to file
written requests to the Court by ex parte motion. This rule, however, explicitly states that ex parte
motions are only permitted “when authorized” in the first instance.
1

27
28

2