Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02280/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02280-6/pdf.json

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

---

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

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT—No. C-05-02280 RMW

JAH

E-FILED on 4/21/06

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

RICHARD CARRIZOSA and MARY PEA,

Plaintiffs,

v.

PAUL STASSINOS; ALAN MECHAM;

LEGAL RECOVERY SERVICES, INC.;

LEGAL RECOVERY SERVICES OF

CENTRAL CALIFORNIA, INC.; and

CENTRAL VALLEY LEGAL RECOVERY

SERVICES, INC.

Defendants.

No. C-05-02280 RMW

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE

APPLICATION TO CONTINUE HEARING

ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

[Re Docket Nos. 57, 65]

Plaintiffs Richard Carrizosa and Mary Pea move ex parte under Civil L.R. 7-10 for an order

continuing defendant Central Valley Legal Recovery Services, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment. 

Plaintiffs fail to show—as required by Civil L.R. 7-10(a)—that their ex parte motion is proper under

"the statute, rule or order which permits the use of an ex parte motion to obtain the relief sought." 

Indeed, under established channels for the sort of relief plaintiffs seek, their motion is not the proper

subject for ex parte treatment. Generally, a motion to change time must comply with Civil L.R. 6-3,

which plaintiffs' motion does not. In the specific context of a motion for summary judgment,

Case 5:05-cv-02280-RMW Document 68 Filed 04/21/06 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

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT—No. C-05-02280 RMW

JAH 2

Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f) provides plaintiffs with the proper procedure for requesting a deferred ruling on

defendant's motion for summary judgment. The court will consider any request for relief under

Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f) concurrently with the associated motions for summary judgment. Plaintiffs' ex

parte motion is denied.

DATED: 4/21/06

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-02280-RMW Document 68 Filed 04/21/06 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

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT—No. C-05-02280 RMW

JAH 3

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

Frederick William Schwinn cand_cmecf@sjconsumerlaw.com 

O. Randolph Bragg rand@horwitzlaw.com

Paul Arons lopa@rockisland.com 

Ronald Wilcox ronaldwilcox@post.harvard.edu 

Counsel for Defendants:

Mark Ewell Ellis mellis@mpbf.com 

June D. Coleman jcoleman@mpbf.com 

Christopher E. Terrill cet@dossandterrilllaw.com 

Thomas Mark Smith msmith@clifford-brownlaw.com

Candace M. Pagliero cpagliero@paglierolaw.com 

James Raymond Pagliero jpagliero@paglierolaw.com 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not registered

for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated: 4/21/06 /s/ JH 

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:05-cv-02280-RMW Document 68 Filed 04/21/06 Page 3 of 3