Opinion
20-CV-1490 TWR (AGS)
09-27-2021
AARON RAISER, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER OR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
(ECF NO. 52)
Honorable Todd W. Robinson United States District Court Judge
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Aaron Riser's “Emergency” Ex Parte Application for Order (“Ex Parte App., ” ECF No. 52). “In our adversary system, ex parte motions are disfavored.” Ayestas v. Davis, 584 U.S. __, 138 S.Ct. 1080, 1091 (2018); accord United States v. Thompson, 827 F.2d 1254, 1257 (9th Cir. 1987)). Consequently, “opportunities for legitimate ex parte applications are extremely limited.” Maxson v. Mosaic Sales Sols. U.S. Operating Co., LLC, No. 2:14-CV-02116-APG, 2015 WL 4661981, at *1 (D. Nev. July 29, 2015) (quoting In re Intermagnetics Am., Inc., 101 B.R. 191, 193 (C.D. Cal. 1989)). A proper ex parte motion must “address . . . why the regular noticed motion procedures must be bypassed, ” i.e., “it must show why the moving party should be allowed to go to the head of the line in front of all other litigants and receive special treatment.” Mission Power Eng'g Co. v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 883 F.Supp. 488, 492 (C.D. Cal. 1995). This requires the moving party to “show that the moving party's cause will be irreparably prejudiced if the underlying motion is heard according to regular noticed motion procedures” and “that the moving party is without fault in creating the crisis that requires ex parte relief, or that the crisis occurred as a result of excusable neglect.” Id.
Plaintiff meets none of these requirements in the instant Ex Parte Application. (See generally ECF No. 52.) Aside from labelling some of the relief he seeks as “ EMERGENCY , ” Plaintiff makes no effort to explain why his request must bypass the regular procedures for noticed motions and be heard on an expedited basis. Rather, Plaintiff initiated this action on August 3, 2020, (see ECF No. 1)-well over a year ago- without seeking preliminary injunctive relief until today, September 27, 2021. (See ECF No. 52.) Because Plaintiff fails to make the necessary showing, “[t]he pending motion[ is] not properly brought in an ex parte manner.” See Maxson, 2015 WL 4661981, at *2. “While the Court liberally construes the filings of pro se litigants, pro se litigants are not relieved from following applicable rules of procedure, including the Local Rule requiring a showing of compelling reasons for seeking relief on an ex parte basis.” Id. (citing Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987)). “As a result, the Court will not address the substance of the motion[] and [it is] hereby DENIED [WITHOUT PREJUDICE]. To the extent Plaintiff continues to seek the relief requested, []he must file the motion[] in accordance with the rules of this Court and provide notice of [it] to Defendant[s'] counsel.” See Id. (emphasis in original).
Further, “the Court has outlined above the extremely limited circumstances in which the filing of an ex parte request is proper. The Court expects Plaintiff to refrain in the future from filing ex parte requests when the appropriate circumstances do not exist for such a filing.” See id.
IT IS SO ORDERED.