Salameh et al v. Tarsadia Hotel et al

Filing 401

ORDER Denying 399 Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Motion. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 4/16/15. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(dlg)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14

TAMER SALAMEH, an individual, et
al.,
vs.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
EX PARTE MOTION
[Dkt. No. 399.]

TARSADIA HOTEL, a California
Corporation, et. al.,
Defendants.

15
16

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 09cv2739-GPC(BLM)

On April 14, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an ex parte motion seeking a stay of
enforcement of judgment through appeal. (Dkt. No. 399.) On April 15, 2015, Tarsadia
Defendants filed a notice that they intended to file an opposition on May 1, 2015. (Dkt.
No. 400.)
“Ex parte applications are a form of emergency relief that will only be granted
upon an adequate showing of good cause or irreparable injury to the party seeking
relief.” Clark v. Time Warner Cable, No. CV 07 1797 VBF(RCX), 2007 WL 1334965
at *1 (C.D. Cal. May 3, 2007) (citing Mission Power Eng'g Co. v. Continental Cas. Co.,
883 F. Supp. 488, 492 (C.D. Cal. 1995)). An ex parte application must address why
the regular noticed motion procedures must be bypassed. Mission Power Eng’g Co.,
883 F. Supp. at 492. The reasons provided “must be supported by deposition
transcripts or by affidavits or declarations whose contents would be admissible if the
deponents, affiants or declarants were testifying in court.” Id. Second, the moving
-1-

[09cv2739]

1 party must be “without fault” in creating the need for ex parte relief or establish that
2 the urgency occurred as a result of excusable neglect. Id.; see also Langer v. McHale,
3 Civil No. 13cv2721-CAB-NLS, 2014 WL 4922351, *2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2014)
4 (denying ex parte motion because defendants failed to make an adequate showing of
5 good cause or irreparable injury to warrant ex parte relief).
Here, Plaintiffs provide no basis for filing an ex parte motion.1 The fact that

6

7 Defendants intend to file a response over two weeks from the date of the ex parte
8 motion indicates that there is no urgency to this issue. Accordingly, Court DENIES
9 Plaintiffs’ motion for an ex parte motion for a stay of enforcement of judgment pending
10 appeal. Plaintiffs may file a properly noticed motion according to the Local Civil
11 Rules.
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14 DATED: April 16, 2015
15
HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiffs have also failed to file the required affidavit as required under the
Civil Local Rule 83.3(g) when filing an ex parte application.
-2-

[09cv2739]