Acosta et al v. City of Salinas

Filing 59

Order by Judge Lucy Koh Denying 57 Motion for Extension of Time to File; Denying 58 Ex Parte Application; Denying 58 Motion for Extension of Time to File. (lhklc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/7/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

RITA ACOSTA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

13
v.

14
15

CITY OF SALINAS,

16

Case No. 15-CV-05415-LHK
ORDER DENYING EX PARTE
MOTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
RELIEF
Re: Dkt. Nos. 57, 58

Defendant.

17
18

On March 7, 2016, Plaintiffs filed an ex parte motion for administrative relief to “extend

19

the deadline for filing Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order.” ECF No. 57. Later

20

that same day, Plaintiffs filed another, substantially identical ex parte motion for administrative

21

relief seeking the same deadline filing extension. ECF No. 58.1
Civil Local Rule 7-10 states that “a party may file an ex parte motion . . . only if a statute,

22
23

Federal Rule, local rule or Standing Order authorizes the filing of an ex parte motion in the

24

circumstances and the party has complied with the applicable provisions allowing the party to

25
26
27
28

1

The only apparent difference between these two ex parte motions is that Plaintiffs’ second ex
parte motion includes the following statement above Plaintiffs’ counsel’s signature: “Under
penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States I declare that the foregoing is a true and
correct statement.” ECF No. 58 at 3.
1
Case No. 15-CV-05415-LHK
ORDER DENYING EX PARTE MOTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF

1

approach the Court on an ex parte basis.” Civil L.R. 7-10. In addition, any ex parte motion “must

2

include a citation to the statute, rule or order which permits the use of an ex parte motion to obtain

3

the relief sought.” Id.

4

Plaintiffs’ ex parte motions fail to comply with Civil Local Rule 7-10. Indeed, in neither

5

motion have Plaintiffs “include[d] a citation [to] the statute, rule or order which permits the use of

6

an ex parte motion to obtain the relief sought.” Id. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ ex

7

parte motions for administrative relief.

8

The Court observes that this is not the first time that the parties have sought to file

9

documents in this action on an ex parte basis. Furthermore, this is not the first time the Court has
denied an ex parte motion because the motion fails to comply with the pertinent procedural

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

requirements. During the March 3, 2016 case management conference, the Court emphasized that

12

too many documents were being filed on an ex parte basis in this action, and that, given the

13

gravity of the issues presented, the Court would like to hear from both parties going forward. ECF

14

No. 52. The parties agreed with the Court’s assessment. Accordingly, the Court again emphasizes

15

that ex parte filings in this action are strongly discouraged.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

Dated: March 7, 2016

18
19

______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2
Case No. 15-CV-05415-LHK
ORDER DENYING EX PARTE MOTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF