Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00538/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00538-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PASKENTA BAND OF NOMLAKI 

INDIANS; and PASKENTA 

ENTERPRISES CORPORATION,

Plaintiffs,

v.

INES CROSBY; JOHN CROSBY; 

LESLIE LOHSE; LARRY LOHSE; 

TED PATA; JUAN PATA; CHRIS 

PATA; SHERRY MYERS; FRANK 

JAMES; UMPQUA BANK; UMPQUA 

HOLDINGS CORPORATION; 

CORNERSTONE COMMUNITY BANK; 

CORNERSTONE COMMUNITY 

BANCORP; JEFFERY FINCK; GARTH 

MOORE; HARTH MOORE INSURANCE 

AND FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.; 

ASSOCIATED PENSION 

CONSULTANTS, INC.; HANESS & 

ASSOCIATES, LLC; ROBERT M. 

HANESS; THE PATRIOT GOLD & 

SILVER EXCHANGE, INC. and 

NORMAN R. RYAN,

Defendants,

SILVER QUICKEN LOANS, INC.; 

CRP 111 WEST 141ST LLC; 

CASTELLAN MANAGING MEMBER 

LLC; CRP WEST 168TH STREET 

LLC; and CRP SHERMAN AVENUE 

LLC,

Nominal 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-00538-GEB-CMK 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ EX 

PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER 

SHORTENING TIME

On July 9, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an ex parte 

application for an order shortening time (“OST”) seeking an 

Case 2:15-cv-00538-MCE-DMC Document 81 Filed 07/13/15 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

accelerated hearing on their motion for a preliminary injunction

(“PI”), which is currently noticed for hearing on July 27, 2015. 

(Pls.’ Appl. OST, ECF No. 77.) Plaintiffs seek in the PI motion

an order freezing certain Defendants’ assets during the pendency 

of this lawsuit. (See Pls.’ Mot. PI, ECF No. 72.) Plaintiffs 

“request acceleration of th[e] hearing date” on their PI motion,

contending they learned two days after filing the motion that 

Defendant Crosby has attempted to sell property that is involved 

in the PI motion, specifically a sports car. (Pls.’ Appl. OST 

1:10-12; see also Decl. Andrew Purdy & 2, ECF No. 77-1.) 

Defendants John Crosby, Ines Crosby, Leslie Lohse, and 

Larry Lohse (collectively “Defendants”) oppose the OST 

application, rejoining “the emergency that Plaintiffs claim 

supports an order shortening time does not exist.” (Defs.’ Opp’n 

2:8-9, ECF No. 78.) Defendants submit the Declaration of 

Defendant Crosby in support of their opposition, in which he 

avers that as of “July 2, 2015, [he has] made no further efforts 

to sell the [referenced sports] car, and [he is] not going to 

sell the car until at least after the preliminary injunction 

motion is decided.” (Decl. John Crosby & 4, ECF No. 78-1.) 

Local Rule 144(e) prescribes, in relevant part, that 

“[e]x 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.” 

(emphasis added). Absent a sufficient showing concerning “the 

circumstances claimed to justify the issuance of an order 

shortening time,” the prescribed manner for handling law and 

motion should not be disregarded. Id. Plaintiffs have not shown 

Case 2:15-cv-00538-MCE-DMC Document 81 Filed 07/13/15 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

sufficient explanation for the need of the issuance of an OST. 

Therefore, Plaintiffs’ application for an OST is DENIED.

Dated: July 10, 2015

Case 2:15-cv-00538-MCE-DMC Document 81 Filed 07/13/15 Page 3 of 3