Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01773/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01773-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 355
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Motor Vehicle Product Liability

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TRACY YU-SANTOS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, TRW )

AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS COPP., )

TRW AUTOMOTIVE INC., TRW )

AUTOMOTIVE U.S. LLC, TRW )

VEHICLE SAFETY SYSTEMS INC., )

ROBERT SANTOS, and DOES 1 )

through 10, )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

1:06-cv-1773 AWI DLB

ORDER GRANTING EX

PARTE APPLICATION TO

SHORTEN TIME

ORDER DIRECTING

DEFENDANT ROBERT

SANTOS TO FILE ANY

OPPOSITION TO

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

DISMISS BY 4:00 p.m. ON

APRIL 14, 2008

Plaintiff has filed a motion to dismiss Defendant Ford Motor Company from this action

in light of the confidential settlement agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant Ford Motor

Company. Plaintiff’s motion indicates that all Defendants, except for Defendant Robert Santos,

have stated they do not oppose Plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff also has filed a motion to shorten

time on Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiff claims that one condition of the settlement is that

the settlement funds issued by Defendant Ford to Plaintiff’s counsel may not be negotiated to

Plaintiff until an order from the court dismissing Defendant Ford is obtained. Plaintiff claims

that she will be “irreparably prejudiced if the undelrying motion is heard according to regular

noticed proceedings be being unable to receive and use the settlement funds or earn interest off

the funds throughout this time.” 

Local Rule 6-144(e) provides the rule for shortening the time within which a

Case 1:06-cv-01773-OWW -DLB Document 42 Filed 04/04/08 Page 1 of 3
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

motion, and all accompanying briefs, must be filed It reads:

Applications to shorten time shall set forth by affidavit of counsel the

circumstances claimed to justify the issuance of an order shortening time. Ex parte

applications to shorten time will not be granted except upon affidavit of counsel

showing a satisfactory explanation for the need for the issuance of such an order

and for the failure of counsel to obtain a stipulation for the issuance of such an

order from other counsel or parties in the action. Stipulations for the issuance of

an order shortening time require the approval of the Judge or Magistrate Judge on

whose calendar the matter is to be heard before such stipulations will be given

effect. Any proposed order shortening time shall include blanks for the Court to

designate a time and date for the hearing and for the filing of any response to the

motion.

Local Rule. 6-144(e). Local Rule. 6-144(e) does not specifically define the circumstances that

will justify an order shortening time or what a “satisfactory explanation” is, but “courts generally

require that the applicant demonstrate circumstances showing that (1) the applicant is not the

cause of its own predicament, and (2) the order is ‘needed’ to avoid some type of harm.” See,

e.g., Hanger Prosthetics & Orthotics, Inc. v. Capstone Orthopedic, Inc., 2007 WL 3340935, *1

(E.D.Cal. 2007); Yokohama Tire Corp. v. Dealers Tire Supply, Inc., 202 F.R.D. 612, 613

(D.Ariz.2001); Mission Power Eng'g Co. v. Continental Cas. Co., 883 F.Supp. 488, 492

(C.D.Cal.1995); In re Intermagnetics Am., Inc., 101 B.R. 191, 193 (Bankr.C.D.Cal.1989). As

explained by the Central District of California:

The purpose of the first part of the ex parte motion papers is to establish why the

accompanying proposed motion for the ultimate relief requested cannot be

calendared in the usual manner. In other words, it must show why the moving

party should be allowed to go to the head of the line in front of all other litigants

and receive special treatment. The reasons stated must be supported by deposition

transcripts or by affidavits or declarations whose contents would be admissible if

the deponents, affiants, or declarants were testifying in court. A statement “on

information and belief” by the lawyer preparing the papers is insufficient.

Mission Power Engineering Co. v. Continental Cas. Co., 883 F.Supp. 488, 492 (C.D.Cal. 1995)

 Here, the court finds there is a satisfactory explanation for the need to advance the

hearing date from May 5, 2008. While Plaintiff has not shown that she will be in financial

difficulties if she does not receive the settlement funds by May 5, 2008, Plaintiff has shown that

she will lose interest on the funds, and has some need for the money. The court also finds that

Case 1:06-cv-01773-OWW -DLB Document 42 Filed 04/04/08 Page 2 of 3
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 3

counsel has adequately explained why a stipulation from opposing counsel or party has not been

provided. Defendant Robert Santos is the only Defendant who has not consented to Defendant

Ford’s dismissal. Plaintiff’s counsel has attempted to contact Defendant Robert Santos, and he

has not returned Plaintiff’s counsel’s phone calls. However, the court is concerned that given

Defendant Robert Santos’s pro se status, he may not fully understand the ramifications of

Plaintiff’s counsel’s phone calls. As such, the court finds that any order shortening time must

give Defendant Robert Santos time to file an opposition if he does not agree to Defendant Ford’s

dismissal.

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that:

1. Plaintiff’s application for an order shortening time is GRANTED;

2. Any Defendant opposing Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss SHALL file an

opposition by 4:00 p.m. on Monday, April 14, 2008; 

3. Plaintiff may file any reply by 1:00 p.m. on Wednesday, April 16, 2008; 

4. The hearing on Plaintiff’s motion SHALL BE HEARD at 1:30 p.m. on

Monday, April 21, 2008; and

5. The hearing currently set for Monday, May 5, 2008 is VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 4, 2008 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01773-OWW -DLB Document 42 Filed 04/04/08 Page 3 of 3