Rebecca Bamberger Works, LLC et al v. Bamberger et al

Filing 91

ORDER Granting in Part Ex Parte 89 Application. Responses due by 10/15/2024, Replies due by 10/22/2024. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 9/25/24. (aas)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

15

REBECCA BAMBERGER WORKS,
LLC d/b/a BAM COMMUNICATIONS, a
Delaware limited liability company;
LLORENTE & CUENCA USA, INC., a
Delaware corporation; and LLORENTE &
CUENCA MADRID S.L., a foreign
corporation,

16

Plaintiffs,

12
13
14

17

v.

18

REBECCA BAMBERGER, an individual;
RBW HOLDCO, INC., a California
corporation; BAM BY BIG LLC, a
California limited liability company; and
DOES 1 through 20,

19
20
21
22

Case No.: 24-CV-706 JLS (DDL)
ORDER GRANTING IN PART EX
PARTE APPLICATION
(ECF No. 89)

Defendants.

23

26

REBECCA BAMBERGER, an individual;
RBW HOLDCO, INC., a California
corporation; and BAM BY BIG LLC, a
California limited liability company,

27

Counterclaimants,

24
25

28
1
24-CV-706 JLS (DDL)

1

v.

2

6

REBECCA BAMBERGER WORKS,
LLC d/b/a BAM COMMUNICATIONS, a
Delaware limited liability company;
LLORENTE & CUENCA USA, INC., a
Delaware corporation; and LLORENTE &
CUENCA MADRID S.L., a foreign
corporation,

7

Counterdefendants

3
4
5

8
9
10

Presently before the Court is Defendants Rebecca Bamberger; RBW Holdco, Inc.;

11

and BAM by BIG LLC’s (collectively, “Defendants”) Ex Parte Application to Amend

12

Scheduling Order (“Appl.,” ECF No. 89) and supporting Memorandum of Points and

13

Authorities (“Mem.,” ECF No. 89-1).1

14

Bamberger Works LLC d/b/a BAM Communications; Llorente & Cuenca USA, Inc.; and

15

Llorenta & Cuenca Madrid S.L.’s (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) Opposition to the Ex Parte

16

Application (“Opp’n,” ECF No. 90).

Also before the Court is Plaintiffs Rebecca

17

On May 31, 2024, the Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs’ request for

18

a preliminary injunction. See ECF No. 34. On August 7, 2024, Plaintiffs identified six

19

actions taken by Defendants that they believed violated the Preliminary Injunction Order

20

and filed a Contempt Motion alerting the Court. See ECF No. 66. The Court set a hearing

21

date for the Motion of December 11, 2024, see ECF No. 67 at 2, and the briefing schedule

22

currently requires Defendants to file an opposition by October 8, 2024, and allows

23

Plaintiffs to file an optional reply by October 15, 2024. ECF No. 73 at 3.

24

On September 18, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Supplement to the Motion, identifying

25

three additional purported violations of the Preliminary Injunction Order, see ECF No. 84,

26
27
28

1

All citations to electronically filed documents refer to the blue pagination numbers assigned by the
CM/ECF system.
2
24-CV-706 JLS (DDL)

1

so the Court clarified that Defendants were to submit an opposition to the Motion and

2

Supplement together in a single response, see ECF No. 86. Just two days after Plaintiffs

3

filed their Supplement, new counsel noticed an appearance on behalf of Defendants to take

4

the place of Defendants’ prior counsel who withdrew from this case with the Court’s

5

approval on September 3, 2024. See ECF Nos. 87–88.

6

Defendants now seek a three-week extension to the briefing schedule for the

7

Contempt Motion, representing that “all of the conditions for engagement were not

8

satisfied until the afternoon of September 20, 2024” and that new counsel is still yet to

9

receive the case file from prior counsel. Mem. at 4. Given the seriousness of the

10

allegations in the Contempt Motion, Defendants argue that the extension is necessary to

11

“meaningfully defend against the allegations made.” Id. at 2.

12

Plaintiffs oppose the extension, arguing that Defendants’ new counsel was well

13

aware of the pending briefing schedule when they were considering whether to take the

14

case. Opp’n at 3. Plaintiffs also place blame on Defendants for “creat[ing] the crisis that

15

necessitated the application” by waiting until the afternoon of the deadline set by the Court

16

to formally retain new counsel. Id. at 4.

17

The Court finds Defendants have established good cause to extend the briefing

18

deadlines as to the Contempt Motion.

19

December 11, 2024, which still leaves over a month between the conclusion of briefing

20

and the hearing if the Court were to adopt Defendants’ proposal. The Court acknowledges

21

the fact-intensive nature of preparing an opposition to the Motion and Supplement and sees

22

no need to rush the briefing on the current timeline.

The Motion is not set for a hearing until

23

That said, Defendants have not convincingly explained why they need an additional

24

three weeks to prepare their response. Although they may still be in need of the case file

25

from prior counsel, surely new counsel have reviewed the docket and have discussed the

26

case with their clients so as to allow them to begin preparing their defense. The Court

27

considered the timeline of events for this case when it clarified the briefing schedule on

28

September 23, 2024, see ECF No. 86, and prefers to remain approximately on schedule.
3
24-CV-706 JLS (DDL)

1

Accordingly, the Court will grant a one-week extension to the briefing schedule.

2

The Court takes this opportunity to note its growing concern with the rise of Ex Parte

3

applications in this case. See ECF Nos. 72, 74, 78, 89. The Parties are reminded that “Ex

4

Parte motions are rarely justified,” only to be used “where there is a temporal urgency such

5

that immediate and irreparable harm will occur if there is any delay in obtaining relief.”

6

Mission Power Eng’g Co. v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 883 F. Supp. 488, 490 (C.D. Cal. 1995). The

7

Parties are expected to exert more than minimal effort in resolving their differences without

8

the Court’s intervention, and Ex Parte applications are not meant to be a first resort when

9

opposing counsel takes issue with a proposed change to the schedule. Generally speaking,

10

“both parties [should] observe regular motion procedures and work together to avoid crises

11

that necessitate ex parte relief moving forward.” Est. of Najera-Aguirre v. Cnty. Of

12

Riverside, No. ED CV 18-762-DMG (SPx), 2018 WL 10152556, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 7,

13

2018). This admonition applies with full force to Plaintiffs’ hint at a possibly forthcoming

14

Ex Parte application to expedite the hearing on the Contempt Motion. See Opp’n at 5 n.4.

15

Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS IN PART Defendants’ Ex Parte

16

Application to Amend Scheduling Order (ECF No. 89). Defendants SHALL FILE a

17

single opposition addressing both the Motion and Supplement on or before October 15,

18

2024. Plaintiffs MAY FILE a single reply, if any, on or before October 22, 2024.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 25, 2024

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
24-CV-706 JLS (DDL)