Opinion
1:23-cv-00117-EPG
05-03-2023
AMERICAN FIRST FINANCE LLC, Plaintiff, v. FERNANDO MENDOZA GARCIA, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING EX PARTE PPLICATION TO SHORTEN TIME FOR HEARING (ECF NO. 11)
On April 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application for an order permitting service by publication. (ECF No. 9). After Plaintiff defectively noticed the matter for a hearing, see Local Rule 230(b), the Court issued a minute order resetting the hearing for May 26, 2023. (ECF No. 10). Now before the Court is Plaintiff's ex parte application to shorten the date of the hearing. (ECF No. 11). As grounds, Plaintiff states as follows: “If the Court grants Plaintiff's request the same day [as the May 26, 2023 hearing], Plaintiff will have only sixty-one (61) days to complete the service by publication by the deadline for service, i.e., July 26, 2023, which is likely insufficient time for Plaintiff to fulfill all the service by publication requirements.” (Id. at 3).
While the Court understands that it might be difficult for Plaintiff to comply with all the service requirements by the current July 26, 2023 service deadline, it does not believe that the appropriate remedy is to shorten the hearing. Service by publication is an atypical means to complete service, and the Court needs sufficient time to review the application before issuing a ruling and has set a hearing date in line with the Court's established practices.
However, to accommodate Plaintiff's concern about being able to timely complete service if the Court approves the application, the Court will sua sponte extend the deadline to complete service.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. Plaintiff's ex parte application (ECF No. 11) to shorten the hearing date is denied.
2. The deadline to complete service is extended to August 25, 2023.
3. If Plaintiff believes a further extension of the deadline to complete service is required, Plaintiff may file an appropriate motion or raise the issue at the hearing on this motion.
Plaintiff cites extensively to email communications with the Court's Courtroom Deputy, including Plaintiff s counsel's requests for clarification of a minute order, for an estimate on the Court's timing for ruling on outstanding matters, for advice regarding the procedure for service, and other questions. Although the Courtroom Deputy attempts to courteously respond to administrative questions, counsel's emails have gone beyond such minor administrative questions, as can be seen by Plaintiff s reliance on such communications in its application. Plaintiff s counsel should refrain from such substantive emails to Chambers in the future, and the Courtroom Deputy may decline to respond without further comment to such questions if they arise.
IT IS SO ORDERED.