Opinion
01 Civ. 10153 (LAK)
February 5, 2002
ORDER
Plaintiffs' ex parte motion for an order vacating the Court's order, dated January 28, 2002, which order dismissed the action for want of prosecution based on counsel's failure to appear at a Rule 16 conference as ordered is denied. Fed.R.Civ.P. 5(a) requires service of all motions other than those that may be heard ex parte on each of the parties save those in default for failure to appear. The Court is not aware of any provision of law permitting a motion such as this to be made without notice. While the Court is aware that plaintiffs have not yet served process on the defendants, Rule 5(a) does not excuse them from serving the defendants with their motion for relief from the January 28 order. Accordingly, the denial of plaintiffs' motion is without prejudice to renewal upon notice to the defendants.
SO ORDERED.