Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01455/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01455-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1964 Civil Remedies: Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

1 

18cv1455-LAB (JLB)

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ANTON EWING, et al., 

Plaintiff,

v. 

OASIS MEDIA, LLC, et al., 

Defendants.

Case No.: 18cv1455-LAB (JLB) 

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE EX PARTE 

APPLICATION TO CONTINUE 

HEARING 

 Plaintiff’s counsel has filed an ex parte motion (Docket no. 73) to continue 

the hearing on the Court’s order to show cause (Docket no. 55), on calendar for 

Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 12:00 noon. 

 The only reason the application gives for needing the continuance is that 

Plaintiff’s counsel wants 45 days for Linda Lucero, Defendants’ former counsel, to 

change her mind about testifying at the hearing. Lucero’s testimony is not required 

at the hearing. Although she was permitted to file a response and appear at the 

hearing if she wished, she was not required to, and she has filed nothing. The 

Court has already quashed two subpoenas commanding her appearance at a 

deposition and at the hearing. The matters Plaintiff’s counsel cites as reasons for 

Lucero to testify are unrelated to the issues the Court will address during the April 

30 hearing. The Court is not inviting Plaintiffs to raise accusations against 

Case 3:18-cv-01455-LAB-MSB Document 75 Filed 04/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

18cv1455-LAB (JLB)

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

Defendants’ counsel or Lucero or anyone else, or to seek reconsideration of its 

earlier orders. Rather, the hearing will focus on Ewing’s violation of civility 

requirements he was ordered to observe, on his contacting unrepresented parties,1

and on his holding himself out as an attorney.2

 The hearing may also address the 

issue of sanctions against Collette Stark, who may either appear in person or rest 

on her briefing. 

 Plaintiff’s counsel is directed to review the Court’s order to show cause 

(Docket no. 55), the order quashing subpoenas (Docket no. 63), and the order of 

April 24. (Docket no. 71.) In that order, the Court explained the issues the hearing 

would focus on, and directed Plaintiff’s counsel to prepare to address those 

specific issues. (See Docket no. 71 at 2:14–3:4.) 

 If Plaintiff’s counsel needs more time to prepare for the hearing, he should 

immediately seek it by filing an ex parte motion explaining why he needs more 

time. The Court would likely grant such a request, although for a much briefer 

period than 45 days. 

Any such motion must be filed as soon as possible; delay would create a risk 

that the motion cannot be ruled on in advance of the hearing. Unless and until a 

                                               

1 Ewing attempted to appeal both the Court’s order forbidding him to contact 

represented parties, and the Court’s order setting aside defaults. (See Appellant’s 

Response to Order to Show Cause, filed March 19, 2009 in case 19-55245, Ewing 

v. Canopy Energy California (9th Cir., filed March 1, 2019).) But as noted in the 

Court’s order of March 4 (Docket no. 51), these rulings are non-final and not 

appealable, and the Court retains jurisdiction over them. See Ruby v. Secretary 

of U.S. Navy, 365 F.2d 385, 389 (9th Cir. 1966). Furthermore, even assuming an 

interim order like this were appealable, appointment of counsel would likely have 

mooted the basis for his appeal. Plaintiff’s counsel is directed to review the docket 

on appeal and, to the extent and in the manner required, notify the Ninth Circuit of 

this development. 

2 Ewing also attempted to raise this issue on appeal, but abandoned it by not 

addressing it in his response to the Ninth Circuit’s order to show cause. 

Case 3:18-cv-01455-LAB-MSB Document 75 Filed 04/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

18cv1455-LAB (JLB)

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

continuance is granted, both Ewing and his counsel remain obligated to attend the 

currently-scheduled hearing in person. Notice of any ruling will consist of the ruling 

being docketed electronically, although chambers staff may notify counsel 

telephonically in advance of such an order being docketed. Counsel or parties 

should not call chambers to inquire. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 26, 2019 

 Hon. Larry Alan Burns 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-01455-LAB-MSB Document 75 Filed 04/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3