McSwiggin et al v. Omni Limousine

Filing 26

ORDER Denying Plaintiffs' 25 Ex Parte Motion Without Prejudice. Plaintiffs shall properly file the motion without an ex parte designation if they continue to seek the relief requested. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 11/09/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - NEV)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 CHRISTY MCSWIGGIN, et al., 11 12 13 14 15 ) ) Plaintiff(s), ) ) vs. ) ) OMNI LIMOUSINE, ) ) Defendant(s). ) __________________________________________) Case No. 2:14-cv-02172-JCM-NJK ORDER DENYING EX PARTE MOTION (Docket No. 25) 16 Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ ex parte motion. Docket No. 25. An ex parte motion is one 17 to which the opposing party is not given notice or an opportunity to be heard. See Black’s Law Dictionary 18 (defining ex parte as something done “without notice to, or argument by, any person adversely interested”). 19 Ex parte motions are disfavored and are only proper in those extremely limited instances in which 20 compelling reasons have been shown. See, e.g., Maxson v. Mosaic Sales Solutions U.S. Operating Co., 21 2015 WL 4661981, *1 (D. Nev. July 29, 2015). 22 It appears that Plaintiffs have misfiled the pending request because the motion makes clear that 23 opposing counsel was provided notice of the motion from Plaintiffs’ counsel and that Plaintiffs are 24 anticipating a potential response to be filed by Defendant. See Docket No. 25 at 2 (outlining attempts to 25 contact opposing counsel and indicating that “[i]t is unknown whether [Defendant’s counsel] will oppose 26 Plaintiff’s Application”). Hence, it does not appear that Plaintiffs are actually seeking relief on an ex 27 parte basis notwithstanding their filing for ex parte relief. Moreover, compelling reasons have not been 28 shown for the filing of the pending request on an ex parte basis. 1 Accordingly, for the reasons discussed more fully above, the pending ex parte motion is DENIED 2 without prejudice. Plaintiffs shall properly file the motion without an ex parte designation if they continue 3 to seek the relief requested.1 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: November 9, 2015 6 ________________________________________ __________________________ __ _ NANCY J. KOPPE KOPPE P United States Magistrate Judge ates Magistrate Judg is is rat dg dge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 To the extent Plaintiffs are attempting to have their motion briefed and decided on an expedited basis, they should file an “emergency” motion that complies with the applicable technical and substantive requirements. See, e.g., Cardoza v. Bloomin’ Brands, Inc., ___ F. Supp. 3d ____, 2015 WL 6123192, *1-5 (D. Nev. Oct. 16, 2015). 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?