Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00300/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00300-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bank of New York
Plaintiff
Bank of New York Mellon
Plaintiff
Daniel K. McAllister
Defendant
Jennifer L. McAllister
Defendant

Document Text:

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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JENNIFER L. MCALLISTER, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-00300-TLN-AC 

ORDER 

This matter is before the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). Defendants 

Jennifer L. McAllister and Daniel K. McAllister removed this case from Sutter County Superior 

Court on February 5, 2015. ECF No. 1. On February 9, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion styled as an 

ex parte motion to remand, arguing that the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over 

this matter. ECF No. 3 at 4. Plaintiff’s motion also alleges that defendants’ removal of this 

matter was untimely. Id. at 3. Plaintiff served its motion upon defendants, id. at 6, but did not 

notice a hearing before the undersigned. 

Eastern District of California Local Rule 230 requires that a moving party file and serve 

moving papers, and set a hearing date not less than 28 days after service and filing of the motion. 

An ex parte application is an exception to the notice procedure. See White v. Cinemark USA 

Inc., No. Civ. S 04 397 GEB KJM, 2005 WL 3890635, at * 1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2005). The 

court in White elaborated: 

Case 2:15-cv-00300-TLN-AC Document 6 Filed 02/18/15 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

[N]oticed motions should be the rule and not the exception. 

Timetables for the submission of responding papers and for the 

setting of hearings are intended to provide a framework for the fair, 

orderly, and efficient resolution of disputes. Ex parte applications 

throw the system out of whack. They impose an unnecessary 

administrative burden on the court and an unnecessary adversarial 

burden on opposing counsel who are required to make a hurried 

response under pressure, usually for no good reason. They demand 

priority consideration, where such consideration is seldom 

deserved. In effect, they put the applicant “ahead of the pack,” 

without cause or justification. Ex parte applications are not 

intended to save the day for parties who have failed to present 

requests when they should have, and should not be used as a way to 

“cut in line” ahead of those litigants awaiting determination of their 

properly noticed and timely filed motions. 

Id. (citing In re Intermagnetics America, Inc., 101 B.R. 191, 193 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 1989)); see 

also Philo v. Gamestop Corp., No. 2:11–cv–03135 GEB KJN, 2012 WL 1521756, at * 1 (E.D. 

Cal. Apr. 9, 2012) (“Plaintiff fails to explain why he could not have made the arguments he now 

makes earlier in the case in a duly noticed manner.”). 

Accordingly, an ex parte application should address why the regular noticed motion 

procedures must be bypassed. See Mission Power Engineering Co. v. Continental Cas. Co., 883 

F. Supp. 488, 492 (C.D. Cal. 1995). It also must be established that the moving party is without 

fault in creating the crisis that requires ex parte relief, or that the crisis occurred as a result of 

excusable neglect. Id. The reasons stated must be supported by deposition transcripts or by 

affidavits or declarations whose contents would be admissible if the deponents, affiants, or 

declarants were testifying in court; a statement “on information and belief” by the lawyer 

preparing the papers is insufficient. Id. at 492. 

Here, plaintiff fails to address, much less sufficiently support, the need for an ex parte 

application. Plaintiff’s application simply never addresses the fact that its motion is not properly 

noticed. Accordingly, the court finds that plaintiff has not established ex parte procedures are 

proper. 

In accordance with the foregoing, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that: 

1. Plaintiff’s ex parte motion to remand, ECF No. 3, is DENIED; and 

//// 

//// 

Case 2:15-cv-00300-TLN-AC Document 6 Filed 02/18/15 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

2. Plaintiff is directed to file a properly noticed motion for remand within fourteen (14) 

days of the service of this order in accordance with Local Rule 230. 

DATED: February 17, 2015 

Case 2:15-cv-00300-TLN-AC Document 6 Filed 02/18/15 Page 3 of 3