Opinion
20-cv-01382-BAS-JLB
06-16-2021
SOPHIA SEGAL, Plaintiff, v. JASON SEGEL, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR STAY
(ECF No. 43)
Hop. Cynthia Bashant United States District Judge
Before the Court is a letter from Plaintiff Sophia Segal requesting a stay of 90 days while she seeks new counsel. (ECF No. 43.) Defendants oppose on the basis that Plaintiff's letter is an improper ex parte request because Plaintiff did not contact Defendants before filing the letter to discuss a stay. (ECF No. 44. )
Ex parte relief is rarely justified. Mission Power Eng'g Co. v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 883 F.Supp. 488, 490 (C.D. Cal. 1995). To warrant ex parte relief, the moving party must show that it will suffer irreparable harm if the motion is not heard on an expedited schedule and that it either did not create the circumstances warranting ex parte relief or that the circumstances occurred as a result of excusable neglect. Id. at 492. Absent a showing that “bypassing the regular noticed motion procedure is necessary, ” an ex parte filing is procedurally improper. Id. at 492-93.
Because Plaintiff's letter makes no attempt to justify her ex parte request, it is procedurally improper. Judge Burkhardt previously directed Plaintiff to her Civil Chambers Rules and this District's Local Rules, which instruct litigants to file a joint motion to modify the scheduling order pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.2 or, if the request is opposed, to file an ex parte motion pursuant to Civil Local Rule 83.3(g). (ECF No. 41; see also Hon. Cynthia Bashant's Standing Order for Civil Cases § 6.) Plaintiff has not complied with this instruction and has instead attempted to circumvent procedures by engaging in ex parte communications with the Court. Furthermore, in its previous Order Granting Plaintiffs Motion to Withdraw Counsel, the Court cautioned Plaintiff that the dates in the Scheduling Order remain in effect and that any attempt to continue or otherwise modify the Scheduling Order would require a noticed motion. (ECF No. 40.)
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs request. Plaintiff is again directed to review the Chambers Rules for both Judge Bashant and Judge Burkhardt and this District's Civil Local Rules. Any future filings from Plaintiff that fail to comply with the proper procedures may be rejected.
IT IS SO ORDERED.