FEEZOR v. GOLDEN BEAR RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., 2:09-cv-03324-GEB-CMK. (2012)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20120206417
Visitors: 2
Filed: Feb. 02, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 02, 2012
Summary: ORDER * GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., District Judge. On February 1, 2012, Defendant and Cross-Claimant A & R Investment Company ("A & R") filed an Ex Parte Application to shorten time to hear a motion for relief from Scheduling Order, and the motion it desires heard is attached as an exhibit to the application. A & R desires to have the referenced motion heard on February 6, 2012, which is the last hearing date for motions prescribed in the Scheduling Order. Concerning ex parte applications to s
Summary: ORDER * GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., District Judge. On February 1, 2012, Defendant and Cross-Claimant A & R Investment Company ("A & R") filed an Ex Parte Application to shorten time to hear a motion for relief from Scheduling Order, and the motion it desires heard is attached as an exhibit to the application. A & R desires to have the referenced motion heard on February 6, 2012, which is the last hearing date for motions prescribed in the Scheduling Order. Concerning ex parte applications to sh..
More
ORDER*
GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., District Judge.
On February 1, 2012, Defendant and Cross-Claimant A & R Investment Company ("A & R") filed an Ex Parte Application to shorten time to hear a motion for relief from Scheduling Order, and the motion it desires heard is attached as an exhibit to the application. A & R desires to have the referenced motion heard on February 6, 2012, which is the last hearing date for motions prescribed in the Scheduling Order. Concerning ex parte applications to shorten time, Eastern District Local Rule 144(e) states, in relevant part:
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.
A & R fails to satisfy this rule since it has not shown a satisfactory reason for having the referenced motion heard on shortened time. Nor has A & R explained why it could not obtain a stipulation from other counsel for an order shortening time.
Therefore, A & R's application for an order shortening time is denied, and the February 6, 2012 hearing A & R noticed for hearing in the application is vacated.
FootNotes
* This matter is deemed suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Cal. R. 230(g).
Source: Leagle
