Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05846/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05846-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

Plaintiffs Leroy Edwards, Kenneth Edwards and Roxanne Ayala will be referred to collectively as

1

“plaintiffs.”

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROXANNE AYALA, et. al, CASE NO. CV F 02-5846 LJO

Plaintiffs, ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE

MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME TO HEAR

vs. MOTION TO VACATE ORDER

(Docs. 123-126.)

KC ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, et al., 

Defendants.

 /

This Court issued its January 6, 2006 order (“January 6 order”) to deny plaintiffs’ belated 1

request for an extension to oppose defendants Terry Buss and City of Bakersfield’s (collectively

“defendants’”) summary judgment motion. This Court issued its January 10, 2006 decision to grant

defendants summary judgment, and this Court’s clerk entered judgment pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 54(b).

On February 8, 2006, plaintiffs filed papers which this Court construes as plaintiffs’ ex parte

request to hear on February 9, 2006 a motion to set vacate the January 6 order and to consider papers

to oppose defendants’ summary judgment motion and supporting papers, which defendants had filed and

served on December 9, 2006. 

Plaintiffs’ ex parte papers filed February 8, 2006 fail to comply with this Court’s Local Rule 6-

144. As such, this Court DENIES plaintiffs’ requested ex parte relief and VACATES the February 9,

Case 1:02-cv-05846-NEW Document 127 Filed 02/08/06 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

Even plaintiffs’ proposed summary judgment opposition papers fail to comply with this Court’s Local 2

Rules.

2

2006 hearing improperly set by plaintiffs. Moreover, if plaintiffs had complied with ex parte shortening

time requirements, their papers demonstrate plaintiffs’ continuing untimeliness, fail to substantiate

grounds for requested relief, and present the same or similar points which were raised in plaintiffs’ prior

papers and on which this Court has ruled. Plaintiffs continue to engage in outrageous untimeliness and 2

to disobey basic law and motion rules to result in discourtesy to this Court and defense counsel. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 8, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05846-NEW Document 127 Filed 02/08/06 Page 2 of 2