COOPERATIVE REGIONS OF ORGANIC PRODUCER POOLS v. STUEVE'S CERTIFIED ORGANIC DAIRY, 1:14-cv-01123 GEB SKO. (2014)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20140731k78
Visitors: 7
Filed: Jul. 29, 2014
Latest Update: Jul. 29, 2014
Summary: ORDER GARLAND E. BURRELL, District Judge. On July 28, 2014, Plaintiff filed a document entitled "Proposed Order Re Expedited Preliminary Injunction Proceedings," seeking a preliminary injunction hearing on an expedited schedule and requesting that its motion for a temporary restraining order ("TRO") be construed as a motion for a preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff also sent an email communication to the Court deputy clerk, "request[ing] that the Court hear the matter on an expedit
Summary: ORDER GARLAND E. BURRELL, District Judge. On July 28, 2014, Plaintiff filed a document entitled "Proposed Order Re Expedited Preliminary Injunction Proceedings," seeking a preliminary injunction hearing on an expedited schedule and requesting that its motion for a temporary restraining order ("TRO") be construed as a motion for a preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff also sent an email communication to the Court deputy clerk, "request[ing] that the Court hear the matter on an expedite..
More
ORDER
GARLAND E. BURRELL, District Judge.
On July 28, 2014, Plaintiff filed a document entitled "Proposed Order Re Expedited Preliminary Injunction Proceedings," seeking a preliminary injunction hearing on an expedited schedule and requesting that its motion for a temporary restraining order ("TRO") be construed as a motion for a preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff also sent an email communication to the Court deputy clerk, "request[ing] that the Court hear the matter on an expedited basis on Friday, August 1, 2014, or as soon thereafter as possible." (See Appendix 1.)
Plaintiff's motion for a TRO was denied on July 25, 2014, since
Plaintiff ha[d] not explained why it did not seek injunctive relief earlier. This failure of explanation for Plaintiff's three-week delay in seeking a TRO implie[d] that, under the circumstances, its delay ha[d] contributed to part of the irreparable injury it aver[red] it [was] enduring, and that it should proceed by an expedited preliminary injunction proceeding, rather than an ex parte TRO proceeding.
(ECF No. 10.) However, Plaintiff's proposed order does not evince compliance with Local Rule 144(e), which prescribes, in pertinent part:
Applications to shorten time shall set forth by affidavit of counsel the circumstances claimed to justify the issuance of an order shortening time. Ex parte applications to shorten time will not be granted except upon affidavit of counsel showing a satisfactory explanation for the need for the issuance of such an order and for the failure of counsel to obtain a stipulation for the issuance of such an order from other counsel or parties in the action.
Communication with opposing "counsel or parties in the action" should include any proposed briefing schedule and hearing date. L.R. 144(e). Since Plaintiff has not shown compliance with this Local Rule, the proposed order will not be signed.
APPENDIX 1
Source: Leagle
