Vashisht-Rota v. Howell Management Services ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 APARNA VASHISHT-ROTA, an Case No.: 20-CV-321 JLS (KSC) individual, 12 ORDER DENYING WITHOUT Plaintiff, 13 PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION v. TO RECONSIDER STAY MOTION 14 HOWELL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, 15 (ECF No. 90) a Utah limited liability company; CHRIS 16 HOWELL, an individual; and JUSTIN SPENCER, an individual, 17 Defendants. 18 19 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Aparna Vashisht-Rota’s Motion to Reconsider 20 Stay Motion (“Mot.,” ECF No. 90), which was filed ex parte without obtaining a hearing 21 date from chamber. In the very Order Plaintiff now challenges, the Court admonished 22 Plaintiff that “ex parte motions are disfavored,” ECF No. 87 at 3 (quoting Ayestas v. Davis, 23 584 U.S. __, 138 S. Ct. 1080, 1091 (2018)), and therefore are appropriate only when “‘the 24 moving party’s cause will be irreparably prejudiced if the underlying motion is heard 25 according to regular noticed motion procedures’ and ‘that the moving party is without fault 26 in creating the crisis that requires ex parte relief, or that the crisis occurred as a result of 27 excusable neglect.’” Id. (quoting Mission Power Eng’g Co. v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 883 F. 28 Supp. 488, 492 (C.D. Cal. 1995)). The Court closed by noting that, having “outlined . . . 1 || the extremely limited circumstances in which the filing of an ex parte request is proper[, 2 Court expects Plaintiff to refrain in the future from filing ex parte requests when the 3 || appropriate circumstances do not exist for such a filing.” Maxson v. Mosaic Sales Sols. 4 || U.S. Operating Co., No. 2:14-CV-02116-APG, 2015 WL 4661981, at *2 (D. Nev. July 29, 5 2015). 6 Plaintiff has made no such showing in the instant Motion; accordingly, the Court 7 || DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's Motion. Plaintiff may refile her Motion 8 |/either (1) after calling chambers to obtain a hearing date, or (2) in accordance with Civil 9 || Local Rule 83.3(g) and the above-enumerated principles. 10 IT ISSO ORDERED. 11 12 ||Dated: September 21, 2020 □□ 13 ja Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28