J.R. v. San Marcos Unified School District
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
The court considered Plaintiff's ex parte application to extend the briefing schedule, which was accompanied by an exhibit containing the minor plaintiff's full name. The court denied the application without prejudice for procedural deficiencies, sua sponte struck the exhibit to protect the minor's privacy, and ordered the plaintiff to file the OAH's ruling on a pending motion for clarification.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application to Extend Time“Therefore, the Court finds Plaintiff’s Application is procedurally deficient and DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Application.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the local rule (S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 83.3(g)(2)) and general case law principles regarding ex parte motions. The order recites that the plaintiff failed to provide the required affidavit or declaration showing notice to the opposing party or a good faith attempt to do so. Because the local rule explicitly states that a motion must not be made ex parte unless these conditions are met, the denial is procedurally sound. |
Sua Sponte Striking of Plaintiff's Exhibit 15“Accordingly, the Court sua sponte STRIKES Plaintiff’s Exhibit 15 (ECF No. 25-1).” | agree with court The court relied on its own General Order No. 514, which mandates the redaction of minor children's names, and cited supporting case law (Fotinos v. Fotinos) regarding the protection of minors' privacy. The order states the exhibit contained the full name of the minor plaintiff, which violates the cited order. The action is consistent with the court's duty to protect the privacy of minors in filings. |
Order to File OAH's Ruling on Motion for Clarification“the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to file with the Court OAH’s written decision on Plaintiff's Motion for Clarification within three days of issuance.” | agree with court The court exercised its inherent authority to manage the docket and ensure it has the necessary administrative records to proceed. Given that the plaintiff's request for an extension was tied to the OAH's ruling, ordering the filing of that ruling is a reasonable procedural step to maintain the status of the case. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the specific local rule requirements for ex parte motions and applies them to the facts recited (lack of affidavit/declaration regarding notice). It also correctly applies the court's general order regarding minor privacy. The reasoning is direct and supported by the cited authorities and local rules.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 J.R., by and through her Guardians ad Case No.: 21-CV-1752 JLS (AGS) Litem; NICOLE REED; and RONALD 12 REED, ORDER (1) DENYING WITHOUT 13 PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S EX Plaintiffs, PARTE APPLICATION TO EXTEND 14 v. TIME; (2) SUA SPONTE STRIKING 15 PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 15; AND (3) SAN MARCOS UNIFIED SCHOOL ORDERING PLAINTIFF TO FILE 16 DISTRICT, OAH’S RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S 17 Defendant. MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION 18 (ECF No. 25) 19 20 21 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application to Extend the Briefing 22 Schedule (“Appl.,” ECF No. 25). Plaintiff requests the Court “extend the briefing schedule 23 to ten (10) calendar days following [Office of Administrative Hearings (“]OAH’s[”)] ruling 24 on Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification.” Appl. at 2. For the following reasons, the Court 25 DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s Application. 26 “In our adversary system, ex parte motions are disfavored.” Ayestas v. Davis, 138 27 S. Ct. 1080, 1091 (2018); accord United States v. Thompson, 827 F.2d 1254, 1257 (9th 28 Cir. 1987). Consequently, “opportunities for legitimate ex parte applications are extremely 1 limited.” Maxson v. Mosaic Sales Sols. U.S. Operating Co., LLC, No. 2:14-CV-02116- 2 APG, 2015 WL 4661981, at *1 (D. Nev. July 29, 2015) (quoting In re Intermagnetics Am., 3 Inc., 101 B.R. 191, 193 (C.D. Cal. 1989)). A proper ex parte motion must “address . . . 4 why the regular noticed motion procedures must be bypassed,” i.e., “it must show why the 5 moving party should be allowed to go to the head of the line in front of all other litigants 6 and receive special treatment.” Mission Power Eng’g Co. v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 883 F. Supp. 7 488, 492 (C.D. Cal. 1995). This District has additional requirements that parties must meet 8 to demonstrate they are entitled to ex parte relief: 9 A motion for an order must not be made ex parte unless it appears by affidavit or declaration (1) that within a reasonable time 10 before the motion the party informed the opposing party or the 11 opposing party’s attorney when and where the motion would be made; or (2) that the party in good faith attempted to inform the 12 opposing party and the opposing party’s attorney but was unable 13 to do so, specifying the efforts made to inform them; or (3) that for reasons specified the party should not be required to inform 14 the opposing party or the opposing party’s attorney. 15 16 S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 83.3(g)(2). 17 The Court concludes that Plaintiff has not demonstrated entitlement to ex parte 18 relief. Compliance with the Local Rules is a prerequisite, not a substitution, for the 19 additional requirements for ex parte relief articulated in the case law. Plaintiff has not 20 avered in an affidavit or declaration that she informed or made attempts to inform 21 Defendant of Plaintiff’s intent to file the present Application. Additionally, she has not 22 argued why she should not be required to inform Defendant about her request. Therefore, 23 the Court finds Plaintiff’s Application is procedurally deficient and DENIES WITHOUT 24 PREJUDICE the Application. 25 Accompanying Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application is Plaintiff’s Exhibit 15 (ECF No. 26 25-1). The documents included in Plaintiff’s Exhibit 15 contain the full name of the minor 27 Plaintiff. As the Court has previously instructed (ECF No. 3), pursuant to this Court’s 28 General Order No. 514, “counsel or parties shall be required to remove or redact the . . . 1 || Names of Minor Children. If the involvement of a minor child must be mentioned, only 2 || the initials of that child should be used.” See also Fotinos v. Fotinos, No. C 12-953 CW, 3 |}2014 WL 546083, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2014), aff'd, 644 F. App’x 793 (9th Cir. 2016) 4 || (striking filings that improperly included minor child’s name). Accordingly, the Court sua 5 ||sponte STRIKES Plaintiff’s Exhibit 15 (ECF No. 25-1). 6 In light of Plaintiff’s representation that she has filed a Motion for Clarification with 7 Office of Administrative Hearings, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to file with the Court 8 ||OAH’s written decision on Plaintiff's Motion for Clarification within three days of 9 || issuance. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 ||Dated: December 2, 2021 tt 12 pee Janis L. Sammartino 13 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28