Hammett v. Sherman

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LAURA LYNN HAMMETT, Case No.: 19-CV-605 JLS (LL)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER: (1) DENYING 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE MOTION TO LIMIT THE MOTIONS TO BE 14 MARY E. SHERMAN, et al., HEARD AT THE OCTOBER 24, 2019 15 Defendants. HEARING TO THE SEVEN (7) CATALOGUED IN ECF 46, AND 16 (2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S EX 17 PARTE MOTION FOR LEAVE OF THE COURT TO ALLOW THE 18 NON-ELECTRONIC FILING OF 19 TWO (2) EXHIBITS 20 (ECF Nos. 53, 57) 21 22 Presently before the Court are Plaintiff Laura Lynn Hammett’s Ex Parte Motions 23 (1) to Limit the Motions to be Heard at the October 24, 2019 hearing to the seven (7) 24 Catalogues in ECF No. 46 (“Hearing Ex Parte,” ECF No. 53), and (2) for Leave of the 25 Court to Allow the Non-electronic Filing of Two (2) Exhibits Which Are Not Convertible 26 to Electronic Form Pursuant to Electronic Case Filing Procedures Manual Section 2k in 27 Regard to Opposition to Sherman Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 40 (“Non- 28 Electronic Filing Ex Parte,” ECF No. 57). 1 In the Hearing Ex Parte, Plaintiff requests that the Court hear only her motion for 2 sanctions (ECF No. 45) and motion to compel the Clerk to enter default (ECF No. 29) and 3 || Defendants’ motions (ECF Nos. 18, 19, 37, 40, 41) on October 24, 2019, and to continue 4 hearing on the motions for attorneys’ fees (ECF Nos. 49, 54) to another date. Hearing 5 || Ex Parte at 2-3. 6 “The Court has inherent power to control its docket ‘in a manner which will promote 7 |{economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.’” In re Galena 8 || Biopharma, Inc. Derivative Litig., 83 F. Supp. 3d 1033, 1042 (D. Or. 2015) (quoting 9 || CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962)). The Court has determined that 10 ||hearing together all motions stemming from Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff First 11 |] Amended Complaint will best promote these interests. Although the Court understands 12 Plaintiff must respond to several motions, these motions present several overlapping 13 |/issues that Plaintiff may adequately address within the forty pages granted her. 14 || Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Hearing Ex Parte (ECF No. 53). 15 In her Non-Electronic Filing Ex Parte, Plaintiff requests leave to file non- 16 |/electronically two tapes of voicemail messages. Non-Electronic Filing Ex Parte at 2-3. 17 || Without making a ruling as to the admissibility of Plaintiff’s proposed exhibits,' the Court 18 || GRANTS the Non-Electronic Filing Ex Parte (ECF No. 57). Plaintiff SHALL LODGE 19 |}a compact disc (“CD”) or digital versatile disc (“DVD”) containing the aforementioned 20 exhibits and SHALL PROVIDE a courtesy copy of the CD or DVD to the Court. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 || Dated: September 9, 2019 tt pee Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge 25 26 27 «Generally, district courts may not consider material outside the pleadings when assessing the sufficiency 28 of a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., 899 F.3d 988, 998 (9th Cir. 2018).