APL Co. Pte., Ltd. v. Mega Shipping, Inc.

Full title: APL CO. PTE., LTD., a corporation, Plaintiff, v. MEGA SHIPPING, INC., a…

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, C.D. California

Date published: Apr 2, 2015

CV 15-00222 DDP (Ex) (C.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2015)

Opinion

APL CO. PTE., LTD., a corporation, Plaintiff, v. MEGA SHIPPING, INC., a corporation; KPJ ENTERPRISE, INC., a corporation; and PHILIP MOO SHIANG LEE, an individual, Defendants. No. CV 15-00222 DDP (Ex) United States District Court, C.D. California April 2, 2015

          ORDER VACATING MOTION TO STRIKE AND MOTION TO DISMISS [DKT. NOS. 9, 10]

          DEAN D. PREGERSON United States District Judge

         Defendant Mega Shipping moves to strike or dismiss claims against it in this action. (Dkt. Nos. 9, 10.) However, the parties agree that Mega Shipping has not met and conferred with opposing counsel as required under Local Rule 7-3. (E.g., Reply ISO Mot. Dismiss at 5:13-22.) Subject to some exceptions not relevant here, that rule instructs that

[C]ounsel contemplating the filing of any motion shall first contact opposing counsel to discuss thoroughly, preferably in person, the substance of the contemplated motion and any potential resolution. The conference shall take place at least seven (7) days prior to the filing of the motion.

L.R. 7-3 (emphases added).

         As the emphasized language makes clear, the meet-and-confer provision is not optional. The court therefore VACATES both motions. Mega Shipping is free to re-file the motions in conformity with the Local Rules.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.