Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03432/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03432-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

CITY OF OAKLAND,

Plaintiff,

 v.

HOTELS.COM, L.P., et al.,

Defendants. 

No. C 07-3432 SBA

ORDER

[Docket No. 46]

Before the Court is plaintiff City of Oakland’s ex parte request for clarification of this Court’s

November 6, 2007 order [Docket No. 46]. The City of Oakland asserted in its complaint that ten online

travel companies failed to remit to the City tax revenue in violation of the City of Oakland’s Transient

Occupancy Tax Ordinance, OAKLAND, CAL., MUNICIPAL CODE ch. 4.24 et seq. 

On November 6, 2007, the Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint

because the plaintiff failed to exhaust its administrative remedies. See Docket No. 45. Oakland did not

allege that it actually assessed any tax against the defendants, that it made any attempt to determine what

if any amount of taxes the defendants owe, or that it demanded the defendants pay any tax and that the

defendants have failed to do so. The Court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice because it was

clear that, absent exhaustion, the complaint could not be saved by any amendment. See Sparling v.

Daou, 411 F.3d 1006, 1013 (9th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1335 (2006); Gompper v. VISX, Inc.,

298 F.3d 893, 898 (9th Cir. 2002). 

In its ex parte motion for clarification, the “Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court clarify

its order to state that Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice to filing a new action once

Plaintiff has exhausted its administrative remedies.” Docket No. 46, at 2. 

The defendants object to the ex parte motion. Under Civil Local Rule 7-10:

Unless otherwise ordered by the assigned Judge, a party may file an ex parte motion, that

is, a motion filed without notice to opposing party, only if a statute, Federal Rule, local

rule or Standing Order authorizes the filing of an ex parte motion in the circumstances

and the party has complied with the applicable provisions allowing the party to approach

the Court on an ex parte basis. The motion must include a citation to the statute, rule or

order which permits the use of an ex parte motion to obtain the relief sought.

Case 4:07-cv-03432-SBA Document 50 Filed 01/28/08 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

The defendants point out that the plaintiff does not cite any “statute, Federal Rule, local rule or Standing

Order authoriz[ing] the filing of an ex parte motion [under] the circumstances.” Thus, the ex parte

motion is improper. Because the ex parte motion was not authorized, the Local Rules required a duly

noticed motion. The plaintiff’s request was not so noticed. 

In addition, the plaintiff did not meet and confer with the defendants before filing this motion.

Under this Court’s Standing Order Number 5, “All parties are expected to meet and confer before filing

any motion before this court.” The importance of the meet and confer requirement is confirmed here.

In response to the plaintiff’s ex parte motion, the defendants state that “[h]ad the City so contacted

Defendants, Defendants would have agreed to stipulate to such a modification (or clarification) of the

Order.” Docket No. 47, at 2. 

For these reasons, plaintiff City of Oakland’s ex parte request for clarification of this Court’s

November 6, 2007 order [Docket No. 46] is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

January 25, 2008 _________________________________

Saundra Brown Armstrong 

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-03432-SBA Document 50 Filed 01/28/08 Page 2 of 2