Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01681/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01681-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 17:0101 Copyright Infringement (definitions)

---

1 

3:18-CV-1681-GPC-NLS 

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 

SARA ELIZABETH SIEGLER, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

v. 

SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS INC., et 

al., 

Defendants.

 Case No.: 3:18-CV-1681-GPC-NLS 

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S 

OMNIBUS MOTION 

[ECF No. 46.] 

 

 Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Sara Elizabeth Siegler’s ex parte motion, filed 

nunc pro tunc October 5, 2018. (ECF No. 46.) Plaintiff makes a number of requests: (1) 

to change venue; (2) to continue the hearings on the defendants’ motions to dismiss (ECF 

Nos. 18, 19); (2) to re-set the briefing deadlines set by the Court with respect to those 

motions; (3) to grant Plaintiff permission to submit her filings electronically or through 

facsimile; (4) for permission to file opposition memoranda in excess of 25 pages; (5) and 

for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. The Court will address these issues in 

turn. 

I. Request for Change of Venue 

Plaintiff has requested a change of venue because she “question[s] [her] ability to 

receive both fair treatment and /or a fair trial before this Court.” (ECF No. 46, at 7.) 

Case 3:18-cv-01681-GPC-MSB Document 51 Filed 10/16/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2 

3:18-CV-1681-GPC-NLS 

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

Plaintiff’s fear of unjust treatment by this Court is predicated on a misunderstanding 

about the procedures used to set a motion hearing date. As such, Court will not grant the 

request for a change of venue. 

Plaintiff suggests that there has been some kind of impropriety with respect to the 

setting of the motion hearing dates for defendants Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc., TNK 

Therapeutics, Inc., BDL Products, Inc., CARgenix Holdings LLC, and Henry Ji 

(collectively, the “Sorrento Defendants”)’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 18), and 

defendant Tufts Medical Center’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 19). Specifically, Plaintiff 

queries how defense counsel knew that the hearing date had been set for November 30, 

2018, two days prior to the entry of the Court’s scheduling orders. (ECF No. 46, at 7.) 

She also states that she had never consented to a hearing date of November 30, 2018, nor 

to a responsive pleading deadline of October 11, 2018, as prescribed in the Court’s 

scheduling orders. (See ECF Nos. 33, 34.) The implication is that the Court had engaged 

in impermissible ex parte communications with defense counsel to secure a hearing date 

and briefing schedule adverse to her interests, warranting a change of venue. 

Plaintiff can rest assured that nothing untoward has occurred with respect to the 

defendants’ motions to dismiss. Lest there be any mystery as to how defense counsel 

divined the motion hearing date ahead of the Court’s scheduling order, the Court directs 

Plaintiff to the Civil Local Rules.1

 Rule 7.1.e.1 provides that the moving party for any 

noticed motion must secure, prior to filing, a motion hearing date from the law clerk of 

the judge to whom the case is assigned. CIV. LR 7.1.e.1. Consistent with Rule 7.1.e.1, 

prior to filing their clients’ motions to dismiss, defense counsel in this case called 

chambers, obtained the November 30, 2018 hearing date from a law clerk, and 

presumably notified Plaintiff of the anticipated hearing date, before the docket had 

updated to reflect the Court’s orders setting the same. 

                                               

1

 Available at https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/Rules/SitePages/LocalRules.aspx. 

Case 3:18-cv-01681-GPC-MSB Document 51 Filed 10/16/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
3 

3:18-CV-1681-GPC-NLS 

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

The non-moving party (i.e., Plaintiff) receives notice of the hearing date by virtue 

of the moving party’s (i.e., the defendants’) notice of motion. The local rules do not 

obligate either the Court or the moving party to consult with the non-moving party with 

respect to the setting of a motion hearing date, or the institution of any filing deadlines. 

Instead, the scheduling of hearings and briefing deadlines are inherent in the Court’s 

authority and prerogative to manage its docket. See, e.g., Atchinson, Topeka & Santa Fe 

Ry. Co. v. Hercules Inc., 146 F.3d 1071, 1074 (9th Cir. 1998) (There is a “well 

established” principle that “[d]istrict courts have inherent power to control their dockets.” 

(internal quotation marks omitted)). 

The Court reaffirms that the scheduling orders in this case were properly drawn, 

and not designed to frustrate the Plaintiff’s interest in responding to defendants’ motions 

to dismiss. No change of venue is warranted, and Plaintiff’s request is denied. 

II. Requests to Re-set the Hearing Date, to Extend Response Brief Deadlines, 

and to file Response Briefs in Excess of Page Limits 

Where, as here, a party seeks relief from the Court’s scheduling order, that party is 

free to apply to the Court for an extension of time to file or for a continuance of a 

hearing. Plaintiff has correctly availed herself of this option by asking the Court to 

extend her response brief deadlines and to continue the November 30, 2018 hearing date 

accordingly. (ECF No. 46, at 7–14.) 

However, before the Court was able to rule on these requests,2

 Plaintiff furnished 

responses to both motions to dismiss. (ECF Nos. 48, 50.) Because Plaintiff has 

submitted her responses in conformity with the Court’s original scheduling order, the 

Court will deem moot her request for extensions of time. Further, Plaintiff’s response 

                                               

2

 Plaintiff’s ex parte motion was received by the Clerk’s office on October 5, 2018 

and forwarded to the Court on October 9, 2018 upon a discrepancy notice indicating that 

the motion was not compliant with Civil Local Rule 5.1. (ECF No. 45.) As a 

consequence, the motion was not filed to the docket until October 11, 2018. 

Case 3:18-cv-01681-GPC-MSB Document 51 Filed 10/16/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4 

3:18-CV-1681-GPC-NLS 

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

briefs total a combined thirty-eight (38) pages and therefore exceed the twenty-five (25) 

page limit prescribed by the local rules for opposition memoranda submitted on the same 

motion day for the same party. CIV. LR 7.1.h. Because Plaintiff has requested leave to 

so file (ECF No. 46, at 15), and finding good cause, the Court will grant leave for 

Plaintiff to proceed on the excess briefs. 

Finally, the Court understands that Plaintiff’s request to continue the hearing was 

animated by Plaintiff’s desire for additional time to draft her response briefs. (ECF No. 

46, at 13–14.) Seeing that Plaintiff was able to furnish her response briefs in time, and 

seeing no other reasons to re-set the previously-scheduled motion hearing date, the Court 

will accordingly deny the request to continue the hearing set for November 30, 2018 as 

moot. The Court is prepared to revisit this ruling if Plaintiff submits another motion 

indicating why that hearing date is not practicable. 

III. Request for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint 

Plaintiff also seeks leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 46, at 

15.) That request appears to be opposed, at least by some defendants. (See id., at 20 

(Email from counsel for the Sorrento Defendants, dated September 26, 2018).) 

In light of the pending motions to dismiss, which would be mooted by granting 

leave to amend, the Court will defer ruling on Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend, and 

set the Motion for Leave to file a Second Amended Complaint for hearing on the same 

date as the motions for dismiss—i.e., November 30, 2018. Defendants must file any 

response brief no later than October 29, 2018, and Plaintiff must file any reply brief 

thereto no later than November 5, 2018. 

IV. Request for Alternate Form of Document Submission for Filing by the 

Clerk of Court 

Plaintiff has also asked this Court to permit her to submit filings via email or by 

facsimile. (ECF No. 46, at 14.) The Court cannot grant the request as such, but will 

grant permission for Plaintiff to access the CM/ECF system. The Case Management / 

Electronic Case Files system, referred to generally as CM/ECF, allows registered users to 

Case 3:18-cv-01681-GPC-MSB Document 51 Filed 10/16/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5 

3:18-CV-1681-GPC-NLS 

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

electronically file documents with the court and allows the court to issue orders and 

notices. Plaintiff is directed to review Civil Local Rule 5.43

 and the Southern District of 

California’s Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures.4

 The Clerk’s 

Office can provide required training on the CM/ECF system. 

CONCLUSION 

 Having considered Plaintiff’s ex parte motion, the Court: 

(1)DENIES the motion for a change of venue; 

(2)DENIES as moot the motion for extensions of time to file response briefs; 

(3)GRANTS the motion for leave to file response briefs in excess of 25 pages; 

(4)DENIES the motion to re-set the hearing set for November 30, 2018 on 

defendants’ motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 18, 19); 

(5)GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the motion for an alternative form of 

document submission. The Court ORDERS that Plaintiff be granted 

permission to file on CM/ECF. Plaintiff is DIRECTED to review the 

manuals cited in this Order so that she might submit filings to the docket 

electronically via CM/ECF; 

(6)ORDERS that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a Second Amended 

Complaint be scheduled for hearing on November 30, 2018, at 1:30 p.m., in 

Courtroom 2D. Any response shall be due October 29, 2018; any reply 

shall be due November 5, 2018. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

                                               

3

 Available at 

https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/Rules/SiteAssets/SitePages/LocalRules/Local%20Rules%202018.pdf. 

4

 Available at 

https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/CMECF/Lists/Policies%20and%20Procedures/Attachments/8/CASDPoli

cies_09-24-2018.pdf. 

Case 3:18-cv-01681-GPC-MSB Document 51 Filed 10/16/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6 

3:18-CV-1681-GPC-NLS 

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

Dated: October 16, 2018 

 

Case 3:18-cv-01681-GPC-MSB Document 51 Filed 10/16/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6