Isaacs et al v. Chartis Specialty Insurance Company

Filing 15

ORDER denying 14 Ex Parte Motion to Lift Stay. The Court DENIES Plaintiffs ex parte motion to lift the stay imposed on this case. Plaintiffs may re-file this request once they are ready to request that the stay be lifted immediately at the time they re-file, presumably on or after January 4, 2013. Furthermore, if Plaintiffs choose to file another ex parte request, they must also comply with this Courts Standing Order for Civil Cases. Signed by Judge M. James Lorenz on 12/7/2012. (sjt)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

CRAIG ISAACS, et al.,

) Case No. 12-cv-381-L(BGS)
)
Plaintiffs,
) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
) EX PARTE MOTION TO LIFT STAY
v.
) [DOC. 14]
)
CHARTIS SPECIALTY INSURANCE
)
COMPANY,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs Craig Isaacs and Nexus Wealth Management, Inc.’s

20 ex parte motion to lift the stay imposed on this case. Specifically, Plaintiffs request that the
21 Court lift the stay as of January 4, 2013, which marks the end of the contractually required 12022 day period before judicial proceedings may commence in the event of mediation. (Ex Parte
23 Mot. 3:5–22.) The Court imposed the stay after the parties jointly requested it so that they could
24 proceed to non-binding mediation.
25

There is a “well established” principle that “[d]istrict courts have inherent power to

26 control their dockets.” Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Hercules Inc., 146 F.3d 1071,
27 1074 (9th Cir. 1998) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, Plaintiffs’
28 request is currently premature. The fact that Plaintiffs request that the stay be lifted one month
12cv381

1 in advance when they are entitled to commence judicial proceedings demonstrates this.
2 Furthermore, Plaintiffs’ request places an unnecessary burden on the Court. Thus, under the
3 district court’s inherent power to control its docket, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ ex parte
4 motion. See Atchison, 146 F.3d at 1074.
5

Alternatively, this Court’s Standing Order for Civil Cases states that

Before filing an ex parte application, the parties must meet and confer
in an attempt to resolve the issue. If the parties are unable to resolve it,
7
the applicant shall attach a declaration documenting the meet and
confer efforts and explain the reason for failure to reach a resolution,
8
or explain why a meeting and conference is not appropriate in the
context of the request.
9 Plaintiffs fail to provide a declaration documenting any meet-and-confer efforts, an explanation
6

10 of the reason for the failure to reach a resolution, or an explanation of why a meeting and
11 conference is not appropriate in this context. (See Tremblay Decl. ¶¶ 1–5.) Thus, this ex parte
12 motion is not in compliance with this Court’s Standing Order for Civil Cases regarding Ex Parte
13 Applications.
14

In light of the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ ex parte motion to lift the stay

15 imposed on this case. (Doc. 14.) Plaintiffs may re-file this request once they are ready to
16 request that the stay be lifted immediately at the time they re-file, presumably on or after January
17 4, 2013. Furthermore, if Plaintiffs choose to file another ex parte request, they must also comply
18 with this Court’s Standing Order for Civil Cases.
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21 DATED: December 7, 2012
22
23

M. James Lorenz
United States District Court Judge

24
25
26
27
28
12cv381

2