International Franchise Association v. State of California
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
Defendants filed an ex parte application for leave to file a notice of supplemental authority in support of their pending motion to dismiss. The court granted the application as unopposed because Plaintiffs failed to notify the court of their intent to oppose within the required time frame.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Defendants' ex parte application for leave to file notice of supplemental authority is granted.“As such, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ ex parte application to file notice of supplemental authority as unopposed. (ECF No. 26.)” | agree with court The order recites that the meet-and-confer requirement of Civil Local Rule 83.3(g)(2) was satisfied and that the opposing party failed to file a notice of intent to oppose within two court days. The court correctly applied the local rule and the judge's standing order, which provide that unopposed ex parte applications may be granted on that ground. The decision follows logically from the procedural facts stated in the order. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable local rule and the judge's standing order regarding ex parte motions. It verifies that the meet-and-confer requirement was met and that the opposition deadline passed without action from the plaintiffs. The conclusion that the motion is granted as unopposed is the correct procedural outcome under the cited rules.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 INTERNATIONAL FRANCHISE Case No. 20-cv-02243-BAS-DEB ASSOCIATION, et al., 12 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ Plaintiffs, 13 EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR v. LEAVE TO FILE NOTICE OF 14 SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 15 (ECF No. 26) Defendants. 16 17 18 19 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ ex parte application for leave to file notice 20 of supplemental authority. (ECF No. 26.) Defendants seek to file notice of Judge 21 Robinson’s recent order in Goro v. Flowers Foods, Inc., No. 17-CV-2580 TWR (JLB), 22 2021 WL 4295294 (Sept. 21, 2021), as supplemental authority in support of their motion 23 to dismiss. 24 Under Civil Local Rule 83.3(g)(2), a party moving ex parte is required to file an 25 affidavit or declaration showing that the party met and conferred with opposing counsel 26 about the intent to file an ex parte motion, made a good faith effort to do so, or should be 27 excused from the meet-and-confer obligation. Once an ex parte motion is filed, the 28 opposing party has two court days to notify the Court with the intent to oppose the motion. 1 || Judge Bashant’s Standing Order for Civil Cases J 6. “Ex parte applications that are not 2 || opposed within two Court days must be considered unopposed and may be granted on that 3 || ground.” Jd. 4 Here, counsel for Defendants filed a declaration stating that on October 4, 2021, she 5 ||met and conferred with counsel for Plaintiffs about the intent to file the present motion. 6 (ECF No. 26 at 3.) On the same day, counsel for Defendants moved, ex parte, for the 7 Court’s leave to file notice of supplemental authority. (ECF No. 26.) Seven court days 8 || have passed, yet Plaintiffs have not notified the Court of their intent to oppose the motion. 9 As such, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ ex parte application to file notice of 10 supplemental authority as unopposed. (ECF No. 26.) 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 || DATED: October 13, 2021 Lin A (Ayphan 6 14 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28