Vashisht-Rota v. Howell Management Services
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff filed an ex parte motion to reconsider a previous stay order without first obtaining a hearing date from the court. The court denied the motion without prejudice, citing the plaintiff's failure to comply with local rules and the court's prior admonition against improper ex parte filings.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider Stay Motion“Plaintiff has made no such showing in the instant Motion; accordingly, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's Motion.” | agree with court The court's decision to deny the motion without prejudice is procedurally sound. The order explicitly states that the motion was filed ex parte without a hearing date, violating the court's prior instructions and local rules. Denying a procedurally defective motion without prejudice is a standard and appropriate remedy that allows the plaintiff to correct the error and refile. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the procedural defect (filing ex parte without a hearing date) and relies on established legal principles (citing Ayestas and Mission Power) to justify the denial. The remedy (denial without prejudice) is appropriate and provides a clear path for the plaintiff to refile correctly.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
inconsistent with cited authorityOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 APARNA VASHISHT-ROTA, an Case No.: 20-CV-321 JLS (KSC) individual, 12 ORDER DENYING WITHOUT Plaintiff, 13 PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION v. TO RECONSIDER STAY MOTION 14 HOWELL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, 15 (ECF No. 90) a Utah limited liability company; CHRIS 16 HOWELL, an individual; and JUSTIN SPENCER, an individual, 17 Defendants. 18 19 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Aparna Vashisht-Rota’s Motion to Reconsider 20 Stay Motion (“Mot.,” ECF No. 90), which was filed ex parte without obtaining a hearing 21 date from chamber. In the very Order Plaintiff now challenges, the Court admonished 22 Plaintiff that “ex parte motions are disfavored,” ECF No. 87 at 3 (quoting Ayestas v. Davis, 23 584 U.S. __, 138 S. Ct. 1080, 1091 (2018)), and therefore are appropriate only when “‘the 24 moving party’s cause will be irreparably prejudiced if the underlying motion is heard 25 according to regular noticed motion procedures’ and ‘that the moving party is without fault 26 in creating the crisis that requires ex parte relief, or that the crisis occurred as a result of 27 excusable neglect.’” Id. (quoting Mission Power Eng’g Co. v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 883 F. 28 Supp. 488, 492 (C.D. Cal. 1995)). The Court closed by noting that, having “outlined . . . 1 || the extremely limited circumstances in which the filing of an ex parte request is proper[, 2 Court expects Plaintiff to refrain in the future from filing ex parte requests when the 3 || appropriate circumstances do not exist for such a filing.” Maxson v. Mosaic Sales Sols. 4 || U.S. Operating Co., No. 2:14-CV-02116-APG, 2015 WL 4661981, at *2 (D. Nev. July 29, 5 2015). 6 Plaintiff has made no such showing in the instant Motion; accordingly, the Court 7 || DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's Motion. Plaintiff may refile her Motion 8 |/either (1) after calling chambers to obtain a hearing date, or (2) in accordance with Civil 9 || Local Rule 83.3(g) and the above-enumerated principles. 10 IT ISSO ORDERED. 11 12 ||Dated: September 21, 2020 □□ 13 ja Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28