Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

STATE EX REL. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, 2:13-cv-02069-KJM-DAD. (2014)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20140922481 Visitors: 2
Filed: Sep. 18, 2014
Latest Update: Sep. 18, 2014
Summary: ORDER KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge. This case is set on the court's calendar of September 30, 2014 for argument on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment and on defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' spending clause claim. On January 14, 2014, the court granted the application filed by Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) for leave to file an amicus curiae brief in support of defendants' motion. ECF No. 17. ATU filed a memorandum in support of defendants' original motion to dism
More

ORDER

KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge.

This case is set on the court's calendar of September 30, 2014 for argument on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment and on defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' spending clause claim.

On January 14, 2014, the court granted the application filed by Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) for leave to file an amicus curiae brief in support of defendants' motion. ECF No. 17. ATU filed a memorandum in support of defendants' original motion to dismiss, ECF No. 25, and also one in opposition to plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 60.

ATU has now filed an ex parte application for leave to participate in oral argument, set for September 30 at 10:00 a.m. ECF No. 65. Plaintiffs have opposed, saying the request is improperly made ex parte and that they will be prejudiced by ATU's participation in argument. ECF No. 66. In reply, ATU reiterates that its "long and deep experience in Section 13(c) matters" may assist the court in resolving the issues before it on summary judgment. ECF No. 67.

Plaintiffs are correct that ex parte applications are disfavored, see Dugan v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, No. 2:11-cv-08145-CAS-SHx, 2014 WL 2986480, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jul. 2, 2014), but ATU's offer to make itself available for questions during argument on the pending motions does not fit neatly within the definition of a "motion" to be calendared. See Melendez v. United States, 518 U.S. 120, 126 (1996) ("[T]he term `motion' generally means `[a]n application made to a court or judge for purpose of obtaining a rule or order directing some act to be done in favor of the applicant.'") (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 1013 (6th ed. 1990)). By filing its application, ATU is saying only that it will make itself available for questions, but is not insisting it be allowed to argue.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

1. ATU's ex parte application, ECF No. 65, is granted; and

2. ATU will not participate in argument on September 30, but may make itself available should the court have questions for it.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer