Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00333/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00333-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

MINUTES OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LOZANO v. CABRERA Case No. 14cv0333 JAH(RBB)

Time Spent: __

HON. RUBEN B. BROOKS CT. DEPUTY VICKY LEE Rptr. 

Attorneys

Plaintiffs Defendants

Mark Potter Bill Adams 

Sabal Masanque 

 

PROCEEDINGS: In Chambers In Court Telephonic

On January 28, 2015, Defendants Julio Yee Cabrera and Enrique Wong Vazquez

filed an "Ex Parte Application of Defendants Cabrera and Vasquez, and

Application for Continuance of Case Management Conference Dates Pending

Ruling on De[f]endants' Motion to Dismiss - Time Sensitive [ECF No. 35]" (the

"Ex Parte Application"). There, Defendants request to extend "all remaining

dates set forth in the Court's Case Management Conference Order Regulating

Discovery and Other Pre-trial Proceedings . . . for 60 days of the date that

a ruling issues on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss." (Ex Parte Appl. 2, ECF

No. 35.)

Plaintiff Enrique Lozano filed an "Opposition to the Defense Ex Parte

Application to Continue the CMC and Supplemental Filings [ECF No. 36]" on

January 29, 2015. Defendants, on January 30, 2015, filed a "Reply in Support

of Ex Parte Application of Defendants Cabrera and Vasquez for Continuance of

CMC Dates Pending Ruling on De[f]endants' Motion to Dismiss - Time Sensitive

[ECF No. 38]."

"Ex parte motions are rarely justified . . . ." Mission Power

Eng'g Co. v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 883 F. Supp. 488, 490 (C.D. Cal.

1995). Often times, ex parte requests merely seek to bypass "the framework

of the rules" and "ask the court to hold a hearing urgently." Id. Filing an

ex parte motion requires the court to "drop[] everything except other urgent

matters to study the papers." Id. at 491. A movant bringing an ex parte

application has the burden to show that relief is warranted.

First, the evidence must show that the moving party's

cause will be irreparably prejudiced if the underlying

motion is heard according to regular noticed motion

procedures. Second, it must be established that the

moving party is without fault in creating the crisis that

requires ex parte relief, or that the crisis occurred as

a result of excusable neglect.

Case 3:14-cv-00333-JAH-RBB Document 44 Filed 02/05/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
LOZANO v. CABRERA Case No. 14cv0333 JAH(RBB)

February 5, 2015

Page 2

Id. at 492. "[M]erely showing that trial is fast approaching . . . is

insufficient to justify ex parte relief. The moving party must also show

that it used the entire discovery period efficiently and could not have, with

due diligence, sought to obtain the discovery earlier in the discovery

period." Id. at 493.

Here, Defendants have failed to prove that they should be allowed to

bypass the regular noticed motion procedure. "'Ex parte applications are not

intended to save the day for parties who have failed to present requests when

they should have.'" Id. (quoting In re Intermagnetics America, Inc., 101

B.R. 191, 193 (C.D. Cal. 1989)). Accordingly, the Ex Parte Application [ECF

No. 35] is DENIED. If the Defendants believe it is appropriate, they may

file a regularly noticed motion.

DATE: February 5, 2015 IT IS SO ORDERED: _________________________

Ruben B. Brooks, 

U.S. Magistrate Judge 

cc: Judge Houston INITIALS: VL (mg) Deputy

 All Parties of Record

I:\Chambers Brooks\CASES\1983\LOZANO0333\Minute06.wpd

Case 3:14-cv-00333-JAH-RBB Document 44 Filed 02/05/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2