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)
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?