Mason v. FCA US, LLC.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Dana M. Sabraw (author)
Analysis
Plaintiffs' counsel filed an ex parte application to advance a hearing on their motion to withdraw or to continue an Early Neutral Evaluation conference. The court denied the application because counsel failed to demonstrate they were without fault in the breakdown of the attorney-client relationship.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Plaintiffs' counsel's ex parte application to advance hearing or continue conference“Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ counsel’s ex parte application for relief.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the local standard for ex parte relief, which requires a showing that the moving party is without fault in creating the crisis. The order recites that counsel acknowledged the relationship had 'deteriorated and broken down irreparably' but failed to explain how they were without fault or that any neglect was excusable. Because this specific element of the test was not met, the denial follows logically from the cited authorities and the record presented in the application. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It identifies the specific legal standard for ex parte relief, applies it to the facts admitted by the moving party (the breakdown of the relationship without an explanation of lack of fault), and reaches a logical conclusion. It correctly notes that because the second prong was not met, it need not address the first prong (irreparable prejudice).
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Case No.: 24-cv-1849-DMS-KSC 11 CHRISTOPHER JOHN MASON, CLAUDIA A. MASON, 12 ORDER DENYING EX PARTE Plaintiffs, APPLICATION TO ADVANCE 13 v. HEARING OR TO CONTINUE 14 EARLY NEUTRAL EVALUATION FCA US, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, CONFERENCE 15 inclusive, 16 Defendants. 17 18 Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ counsel’s ex parte application to advance the 19 February 14, 2025 hearing on Plaintiffs’ counsel’s motion for order to withdraw as counsel 20 or, in the alternative, continue the February 10, 2025 Early Neutral Evaluation Conference. 21 (ECF No. 31). Defendants do not oppose. (ECF No. 32). 22 “Ex parte relief is rarely justified.” Al Otro Lado, Inc. v. Wolf, No. 17-CV-02366- 23 BAS-KSC, 2020 WL 8617490, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2020) (citing Mission Power Eng’g 24 Co. v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 883 F. Supp. 488, 490 (C.D. Cal. 1995)). To warrant ex parte relief, 25 the moving party must first show that their “cause will be irreparably prejudiced if the 26 underlying motion is heard according to regular noticed motion procedures.” Mission 27 Power Eng’g Co., 883 F. Supp. at 492. Second, the moving party must establish “that [it] 28 1 without fault in creating the crisis that requires ex parte relief, or that the crisis occurred 2 a result of excusable neglect.” Jd. The motion “must be supported by deposition 3 |/transcripts or by affidavits or declarations whose contents would be admissible if the 4 || deponents, affiants, or declarants were testifying in court. A statement ‘on information and 5 belief by the lawyer preparing the papers is insufficient.” Jd. 6 Plaintiffs’ counsel has not carried its burden as to the second element.' Counsel 7 ||acknowledges that “[i]ts relationship with Plaintiffs has deteriorated and broken down 8 |/irreparably.” (ECF No. 31, at 3). However, Plaintiffs’ counsel’s present ex parte motion, 9 ||its accompanying attorney declaration by Rabiya Tirmizi, and the underlying motion to 10 || withdraw do not explain how Plaintiffs’ counsel is without fault for the breakdown in the 11 || attorney-client relationship or that any neglect precipitating the circumstances 1s excusable. 12 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ counsel’s ex parte application for relief. 13 || All hearing dates shall remain the same. Plaintiffs’ counsel will have the opportunity to 14 || elaborate the merits of their motion to withdraw at the February 14, 2025 hearing. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 ||Dated: February 7, 2025 »» 17 fon yn. 18 Hon. Dana M. Sabraw 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Because the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ counsel has not carried its burden as to the second prong, the Court declines to rule on whether Plaintiffs’ counsel has carried its burden as to the first prong.