Opinion
Case No. 19-cv-02217-BAS-MDD
05-21-2021
DAVID HASTINGS, Plaintiff, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S Ex Parte MOTION TO CONTINUE HEARING DATE FOR DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 88)
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's ex parte application ("App.") to continue the hearing date on Defendants Ford Motor Company and Ford of Chula Vista's motion for summary judgment ("MSJ") by a week. (Pl.'s App., ECF No. 88.) Defendants filed their MSJ on May 3, 2021, with a noticed hearing date of June 7, 2021. (Defs.' MSJ, ECF No. 85.) Under this district's Local Rules, Plaintiff is required to file his opposition to the MSJ or on or before May 24, 2021. Civ. L.R. 7.1(e)(2). On May 14, 2021, Plaintiff moved for leave to amend his pleading, noticing a hearing date of June 14, 2021. (Pl.'s Mot. Amend, ECF No. 87.) On May 18, 2021, Plaintiff filed the present ex parte application to continue the hearing date on Defendants' MSJ to match the noticed hearing date of his motion for leave to amend his pleading. Granting the ex parte motion would have the effect of continuing the hearing date and Plaintiff's deadline to file an opposition by seven days. Defendants oppose the ex parte application, arguing that Plaintiff did not follow the local procedures governing ex parte applications and failed to show good cause. (Defs.' Opp'n to App., ECF No. 91.)
Ex parte relief may be granted where, as here, "the party seeks a routine procedural order that cannot be obtained through a regularly noticed motion," such as extending time to file a brief. See In re ConAgra Foods, Inc., No. CV1105379MMMAGRX, 2014 WL 12580052, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2014) (holding that while "opportunities for legitimate ex parte applications are extremely limited," a party seeking a routine procedural order is one instance where the limited use of the relief is allowed). A short, seven-day continuance of briefing deadline is routinely granted, and the papers do not show that Defendants would be prejudiced by the continuance. Further, the emails exchanged between counsel attached to the ex parte application show that Defendants were on notice that their refusal to stipulate to the week-long extension would lead Plaintiff to file the present ex parte application. (Tabesh Decl., Ex. A, ECF No. 88-1.) The Court's policy to decide the cases on the merits also favors granting a seven-day extension to allow Plaintiff to fully brief his position.
Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's ex parte application. (ECF No. 88.) The hearing date for Defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 85) is CONTINUED to June 14, 2021. Going forward, the parties are encouraged to cooperate with each other and adhere to the procedures set forth in this district's local rules and this Court's Standing Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: May 21, 2021
/s/ _________
Hon. Cynthia Bashant
United States District Judge