Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00235/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00235-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

1

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE MOTION 

FOR TELEPHONIC ENE CONFERENCE [ECF NO. 24] 

 CASE NO. 3:12-CV-0235-L -RBB 

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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

 RICHARD HADSELL, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

CACH, LLC and MANDARICH LAW 

GROUP, LLP, 

 Defendants. 

___________________________________

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

CASE NO. 3:12-CV-0235-L -RBB

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE MOTION FOR TELEPHONIC ENE CONFERENCE [ECF NO. 24]

On October 23, 2012, Defendants Mandarich Law Group, LLP, and CACH, 

LLC, filed an Ex Parte Motion for Telephonic ENE Conference [ECF No. 24]. The 

Plaintiff, Richard Hadsell, filed Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Ex Parte 

Application Requesting Appearance by Telephone at the Upcoming Mandatory 

Settlement Conference on the same day [ECF No. 25]. The Court has considered 

the Ex Parte Motion and Opposition and denies the Ex Parte Motion for the reasons 

stated below. 

Neither Plaintiff nor Defendants appeared in person for the early neutral 

evaluation conference held on May 18, 2012, or the follow-up settlement conference 

on July 19, 2012. At the request of the parties, both conferences were telephonic, 

Case 3:12-cv-00235-L-RBB Document 26 Filed 10/24/12 Page 1 of 2
2

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE MOTION 

FOR TELEPHONIC ENE CONFERENCE [ECF NO. 24] 

 CASE NO. 3:12-CV-0235-L -RBB 

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

attorneys-only conferences [ECF Nos. 10, 13]. Following the conference on July 19, 

2012, the Court scheduled an in-person settlement conference for October 26, 2012, 

at 10:00 a.m. [ECF No. 15]. Defendants' Ex Parte Motion on the eve of the inperson conference is not based on any exigent circumstance that justifies the lastminute submission. Nor does the Ex Parte Motion establish that "other important 

company business and engagements" were previously set or should take precedence 

over the in-person conference. (See Ex Parte Mot. 2, ECF No. 24.) A scheduling 

conflict might warrant a continuance to another date, but Defendants do not seek a 

short continuance. Defendants have not established that they are entitled to ex 

parte relief. See Mission Power Eng'g Co. v. Continental Cas. Co., 883 F. Supp. 488, 

493 (C.D. Cal. 1995). 

Finally, the Ex Parte Motion does not establish good cause to grant the relief 

requested. 

Defendants' Ex Parte Motion is DENIED. 

It is so ordered. 

DATED: October 24, 2012 ___________________________________ 

 Ruben B. Brooks, Magistrate Judge 

 United States District Court 

cc: 

Judge Lorenz 

All Parties of Record 

______________________________

R b BB k Mi J d

Case 3:12-cv-00235-L-RBB Document 26 Filed 10/24/12 Page 2 of 2