Westcott Enterprises, Inc. v. Federal Mutual Insurance Company
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Larry Alan Burns (author)
Analysis
The court recharacterized Plaintiff's noticed motion for leave to file an opposition as an ex parte request and vacated the scheduled hearing. The court indicated an inclination to grant the request but invited Defendants to file an opposition by April 24, 2020.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for leave to file opposition recharacterized as ex parte request and hearing vacated“Rather than treat this as a noticed motion, the Court will treat it as an ex parte request, and the hearing currently on calendar on this motion is VACATED.” | agree with court The court exercised its inherent authority to manage its docket and recharacterize a filing to ensure procedural fairness. By treating the motion as ex parte, the court preserved the right of the opposing party (Defendants) to be heard before a final decision is made, which aligns with due process principles. The invitation to file an opposition by a specific date is a standard procedural mechanism to resolve the pending request. |
Invitation for Defendants to file opposition by April 24, 2020“But if Defendants believe request should be denied, they may file an opposition by April 24, 2020.” | agree with court This is a procedural directive to allow the adverse party to respond to the ex parte request. It is a standard practice to ensure that both sides have an opportunity to be heard before the court rules on the underlying motion for leave to file. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a short, procedural scheduling order. It correctly identifies the procedural posture (noticed motion vs. ex parte request) and provides a mechanism for the opposing party to respond. The citation to Eitel v. McCool supports the court's inclination to grant the request to allow the case to proceed on the merits, although the final decision is deferred pending potential opposition. The reasoning is sufficient for the procedural step taken.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WESTCOTT ENTERPRISES, INC. Case No.: 20cv7-LAB (BGS) V2 Plaintiff, | ORDER RECHARACTERIZING 13 || V- MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 14 || FEDERATED MUTUAL OPPOSITION 45 INSURANCE COMPANY, et al. 16 Defendants. 17 Plaintiff filed a noticed motion (Docket no. 18) for leave to file an opposition 18 ||to Defendant Brian Faulstich’s motion to dismiss. Rather than treat this as a 19 ||noticed motion, the Court will treat it as an ex parte request, and the hearing 20 ||currently on calendar on this motion is VACATED. In light of the strong policy 21 ||favoring decisions on the merits, see Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1472 (9" Cir. 22 ||1986), the Court would be inclined to grant the request. But if Defendants believe 23 request should be denied, they may file an opposition by April 24, 2020. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 ||Dated: April 20, 2020 26 / it 4 □□ 27 Honorable Larry Alan Burns 28 Chief United States District Judge