Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02466/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02466-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RON HART AND JUDY VEZEAU, on )

behalf of themselves and all ) CIV. S-04-2466 GEB DAD

others similarly situated and on )

behalf of the general public, )

) 

Plaintiffs, ) ORDER

)

v. )

) 

K MART MANAGEMENT CORPORATION; )

K MART HOLDING CORPORATION, )

)

Defendants. )

)

On April 20, 2005, Defendants filed an application for an

order shortening time which would accelerate the hearing date on their

unopposed ex parte request for an order to modify certain dates in the

Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order, filed February 17, 2005 (“Status

Order”). Defendants request their motion to modify the Status Order

be heard on May 2, 2005. 

Defendants argue in a conclusory manner that “in light of

the June 1, 2005, mediation . . . and given the deadlines by which the

parties must act in order to comply with the Scheduling Order, for

planning purposes, it will be immeasurably helpful for all the parties

Case 2:04-cv-02466-GEB-DAD Document 19 Filed 04/27/05 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

1 This is the third ex parte application I have received within

the last seven days.

[E]x parte applications contravene the structure

and spirit of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

and the Local Rules of this court. Both

contemplate that noticed motions should be the

rule and not the exception. . . . Ex parte

applications throw the system out of whack. They

impose an unnecessary administrative burden on the

court . . . [by] demand[ing] priority

consideration. . . . In effect, they put the

applicant "ahead of the pack," [often] without

cause or justification. 

In re Intermagnetics America, Inc., 101 B.R. 191, 193 (Bankr. C.D.

Cal. 1989).

2

to know at the earliest opportunity whether the Court will grant the

Motion seeking the extension of time.” (Unopposed Application of Def.

KMart Corp. for an Order Shortening Time to Hear the Unopposed Mot. of

KMart Corp. to Modify Certain Dates in the Status (Pretrial

Scheduling) Order at 2-3.) 

The request for an accelerated hearing date is denied.1 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 27, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02466-GEB-DAD Document 19 Filed 04/27/05 Page 2 of 2