Bessmertnyy v. Kirk
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Myron James Lorenz (author)
Analysis
The court considered an ex parte motion by the Respondent to continue the briefing schedule on a habeas petition due to a calendaring error. The court granted the motion and set new deadlines for the response and traverse.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Ex parte motion to continue briefing schedule granted“The Court therefore GRANTS the ex parte motion.” | agree with court The court applied the factors typically associated with motions for continuance (prejudice, length of delay, bad faith) and cited its own standing order authorizing rulings on simple administrative requests without opposition. The decision is consistent with the cited authorities and the procedural posture. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the nature of the motion as a simple administrative request. It applies the relevant factors for continuance (prejudice, delay, bad faith) and cites the appropriate local standing order that permits ex parte rulings on such matters. The reasoning is sufficient for the procedural context.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 PETR K. BESSMERTNYY, Case No.: 3:21-cv-779-L-LL 10 Petitioner, 11 v. ORDER ON EX PARTE MOTION 12 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, (ECF 5) 13 Respondent. 14 15 Pending before the Court is an ex parte motion to continue the briefing schedule on 16 the habeas petition. (ECF 5). Respondent’s counsel miscalendared the response 17 deadline. (ECF 5-1). The requested extension will not result in undue prejudice. The 18 delay is short and will not have a significant impact on the case. There is also nothing to 19 suggest Respondent acted in bad faith. The Court therefore GRANTS the ex parte 20 motion. See Laurino v. Syringa Gen. Hosp., 279 F.3d 750, 753 (9th Cir. 2002); Hon. M. 21 James Lorenz Standing Order for Civil Cases (“the court will rule upon simple 22 administrative requests without requiring a response from the opposing party. If a party 23 intends to oppose, the party must immediately contact chambers and request an 24 opportunity to file an opposition.”) 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 Respondent has until July 9, 2021 to file and serve a response, if any, which shall 2 ||include all relevant documents. Petitioner has until August 9, 2021 to file and serve a 3 || traverse, if any. The Court will decide the matter on the papers submitted without oral 4 ||argument. See Civ. L. R. 7.1. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 ||Dated: June 10, 2021 : 1 fee fp g H . James Lorenz, 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28