Rebecca Bamberger Works, LLC dba Bam Communications, et al. v. Llorente & Cuenca USA, Inc., et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss without obtaining a hearing date from the court clerk as required by local rules. The court declined to strike the motion, instead setting a new briefing schedule and rescheduling the hearing for June 25, 2026.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
The court declined to strike the Motion to Dismiss despite the failure to comply with Civil Local Rule 7.1(b), exercising its discretion to set a briefing schedule instead.“the Court, in its discretion, SETS a briefing schedule for the Motion in lieu of striking the Motion.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the failure to obtain a hearing date is a violation of local rules that can be grounds for rejection or sanctions. However, district courts have inherent discretion to manage their dockets and may choose to cure procedural defects rather than dismiss or strike filings, particularly when the defect is curable and does not prejudice the opposing party. The decision to set a schedule is a standard exercise of case management authority. |
The court vacated the June 1, 2026 hearing date and rescheduled the hearing for the Motion to Dismiss to June 25, 2026, to be heard in conjunction with the pending Motion for Preliminary Injunction.“The Court will hear the Motion to Dismiss at the June 25, 2026, hearing at 1:30 P.M. ... The June 1, 2026, hearing is VACATED.” | agree with court Consolidating hearings for related motions (Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Preliminary Injunction) is a common and efficient case management practice. The court has broad discretion to set hearing dates and manage its calendar. The decision to vacate the improperly obtained date and set a new one is procedurally sound. |
The court set a briefing schedule requiring Plaintiffs to file an opposition by May 28, 2026, and allowing Defendants to file a reply by June 4, 2026.“Plaintiffs SHALL FILE their opposition to the Motion on or before May 28, 2026. Defendants MAY FILE their reply, if any, on or before June 4, 2026.” | agree with court Setting specific deadlines for briefing is within the court's inherent authority to manage litigation. The dates provided allow for a reasonable period for briefing before the rescheduled hearing. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the local rule violation, cites appropriate authority for the significance of the rule, and exercises discretion to cure the defect rather than punish it, which is a standard and reasonable case management decision. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a procedural order.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 REBECCA BAMBERGER WORKS, Case No.: 26-CV-884 JLS (DDL) LLC dba BAM COMMUNICATIONS, 12 et al., ORDER (1) SETTING BRIEFING 13 SCHEDULE FOR DEFENDANTS’ Plaintiffs, MOTION TO DISMISS AND (2) 14 v. RESCHEDULING HEARING 15 LLORENTE & CUENCA USA, INC., et (ECF No. 27) 16 al., 17 Defendants. 18 19 Presently before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint 20 (ECF No. 27). The Court notes that the Motion lists a hearing date of June 1, 2026, at 1:30 21 P.M. However, Defendants’ Counsel failed to obtain this hearing date from chambers as 22 required by Civil Local Rule 7.1(b). See S.D. Cal. CivLR 7.1(b) (“All hearing dates for 23 any matters on which a ruling is required must be obtained from the Clerk of the judge to 24 whom the case is assigned.”). 25 “The requirement that a party obtain a hearing date from the judge’s clerk is no 26 empty formality; it is a rule of substantial importance. Under Civil Local Rule 7.1(e)(1)– 27 (3), the hearing date sets in motion a calendar for the filing of opposition and reply briefs.” 28 Kashin v. Kent, No. 02-CV-2495-LAB(WMC), 2007 WL 1975435, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 1 2007), aff'd, 342 F. App’x 341 (9th Cir. 2009). “Furthermore, permitting parties to 2 ||impose hearing dates on the Court impairs the Court’s ability to manage its own calendar 3 |}and to monitor the timeliness of motions.” Jd. at *2.. While Counsel’s failure to comply 4 the Civil Local Rules is grounds to reject the filing, see id. (“Failure to obey the 5 || requirements of Civil Local rule 7.1(b) and (e)(1) regarding hearing dates was therefore a 6 || sufficient basis on which to reject the first attempted filing.”); see also S.D. Cal. CivLR 7 || 83.1(a) (providing that failure to comply with the Civil Local Rules “may be grounds for 8 ||imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or rule or within the 9 || inherent power of the Court’), the Court, in its discretion, SETS a briefing schedule for the 10 || Motion in lieu of striking the Motion. However, the Court cautions the Parties to comply 11 |} with the Civil Local Rules henceforth. 12 The Court finds the Motion proper to consider in conjunction with the pending 13 || Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 6). Therefore, the Court will hear the Motion 14 |/to Dismiss at the June 25, 2026, hearing at 1:30 P.M. See ECF No. 26. The June 1, 2026, 15 ||hearing is VACATED. Plaintiffs SHALL FILE their opposition to the Motion on or 16 || before May 28, 2026. Defendants MAY FILE their reply, if any, on or before June 4, 17 2026. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: May 6, 2026 . L .
21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28