Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02544/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02544-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GENERAL CHARLES E. “CHUCK” 

YEAGER (RET.), et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER, PLC, et 

al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-2544 KJM DAD PS

ORDER

Plaintiffs Charles Yeager and Victoria Yeager are proceeding pro se in the above entitled 

action. The case was referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). 

On January 5, 2015, defendants filed an ex parte application for an order continuing the 

hearing of plaintiffs’ motion to remand, currently set for hearing before the undersigned on 

January 23, 2015. (Dkt. No. 14.) Therein, defendants explain that commencing January 5, 2015, 

“John Zarian and Kennedy Luvai, the two individuals most familiar with this matter, will be 

serving as lead counsel in a matter that will be the subject of a two week trial . . . .” (Id. at 1.) 

Accompanying defendants’ application are affidavits of counsel stating that a stipulation 

extending time could not reasonably be obtained, explaining the reasons why the stipulation could 

not be obtained and the reasons why the requested extension of time is necessary. Although, 

defendants’ filing states that counsel advised plaintiffs that the ex parte request would be made 

Case 2:14-cv-02544-KJM-DB Document 15 Filed 01/09/15 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

and that it was “unclear whether Plaintiffs will oppose such a request,” (Id. at 2) the court is 

aware that plaintiffs do oppose defendants’ request. 

The court may grant an initial ex parte extension of time upon the affidavit of counsel that 

a stipulation extending time cannot reasonably be obtained, explaining the reasons why such a 

stipulation cannot be obtained and the reasons why the extension is necessary. E.D. Cal. Local 

Rule 144(c). Except for one such initial extension, ex parte applications are not ordinarily 

granted. (Id.) Here, the court finds that defendants’ application has demonstrated that an initial 

extension of time is necessary and that defendant’s application satisfies the requirements of Local 

Rule 144(c).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The hearing of plaintiffs’ motion to remand is continued from January 23, 2015, to 

Friday, March 20, 2015, at 10:00 a.m.

1

, at the United States District Court, 501 I Street, 

Sacramento, California, in Courtroom No. 27, before the undersigned.

2. Any party may appear at the hearing of the motion to remand telephonically if the 

party pre-arranges such appearance by contacting Pete Buzo, the courtroom deputy of the 

undersigned magistrate judge, at (916) 930-4128, no later than 48 hours before the hearing; a land 

line telephone number must be provided.

Dated: January 8, 2015

DAD:6

Ddad1\orders.pro se\yeager2544.exparte.eot.ord.docx

 

1

 Although defendants’ requested only a twenty-one day continuance of the hearing, plaintiffs 

have since advised the court that March 20, 2015, is the first available hearing date that would 

allow for their appearance in light of their other commitments. 

Case 2:14-cv-02544-KJM-DB Document 15 Filed 01/09/15 Page 2 of 2