Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02318/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02318-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

ANTHONY PADILLA, individually, 

and on behalf of other members 

of the general public similarly 

situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

APL LOGISTICS AMERICAS LTD., a 

California corporation; APL 

LOGISTICS WAREHOUSE MANAGEMENT 

SERVICES INC., a Florida 

corporation; CARMICHAEL 

INTERNATIONAL SERVICE, a 

California corporation; APL 

LOGISTICS GROUP, an unknown 

business entity; APL LOGISTICS 

LTD., an unknown business 

entity; and DOES 1 through 100, 

inclusive,

Defendants.

No. 2:24-cv-02318 WBS SCR

ORDER

----oo0oo----

Plaintiff’s motion to remand has been set for hearing 

since the motion was filed on September 26, 2024. This court is 

prepared to hear the motion on the scheduled date. Now, on 

December 5, 2024 -- a mere four days prior to the scheduled 

December 9, 2024 hearing -- defense counsel informed the Clerk 

Case 2:24-cv-02318-WBS-SCR Document 15 Filed 12/05/24 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

that they needed to appear at three hearings in the Central 

District of California, which have somehow just been rescheduled

sua sponte for the same day this matter is set for hearing. 

There was no showing that counsel asked the judge or 

judges in the Central District matters to continue those 

hearings, or that another attorney in the defense law firm cannot 

cover those matters. Instead, it appears that counsel’s reaction 

was simply to request this last-minute continuance of the matter 

in this court. Unfortunately, this is not an uncommon 

experience, most commonly seen in matters out of southern 

California.

This court has determined that it would benefit from 

oral argument on the motion that has been pending in this court 

for the last two-plus months. It is no acceptable solution to 

defense counsel’s conflict to put the hearing on the matter off 

to some future date. The court simply cannot afford to run its 

calendar that way. The court notes that defendants have no less 

than four lawyers, from a law firm with more than 1000 lawyers, 

listed as counsel on their opposition to the motion. It is hard 

to believe that defendant’s law firm is unable to arrange for a 

personal appearance by one of those lawyers who affixed their 

names to the pleadings. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant’s request for a 

continuance is DENIED, and counsel for defendant shall personally 

appear at the December 9, 2024 hearing on the motion to remand.

Dated: December 5, 2024

Case 2:24-cv-02318-WBS-SCR Document 15 Filed 12/05/24 Page 2 of 2