Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
9CloseCallsContinuedfromPage6movingpartyisunabletosecureastipulationforthereliefsoughtitmustsubmitadeclarationexplainingwhyastipulationcouldnotbeobtained.Partieswishingtoopposeorsupportthemotionalsohaveonlyfivepagestosuccinctlymaketheircounterar-gumentsandtheymustfiletheirbriefsnolaterthanfourdaysafterthemotionhasbeenfiled.Thecourtconsidersthemotionsubmittedforimmediatedeter-minationwithouthearingonthedayaftertheop-positionisduei.e.5daysafterthemotionisfiled.TheCentralDistricthasnosuchLocalRuleforad-ministrativeprocedures.Ratherapartywouldtypi-callyneedtoseekexpeditedreliefthroughanexparteapplicationunderLocalRule7-19.UnliketheNorthernDistrictslocalruleforadministrativemotionsLocalRule7-19isfairlysparseinitspro-ceduralrequirements.Forinstancethereisnostat-edpagelimitforthememorandumofpointsandauthoritiesmeaningthemovingpartyandtheop-posingpartymaysubmita25-pagebriefasal-lowedunderLocalRule11-6.Thememorandummustexplainthereasonsforseekinganexparteor-derandmustcontainifknownthenameaddresstelephonenumberande-mailaddressofopposingcounsel.Thetwodistrictsdohavesimilarrequire-mentsforattemptingtoobtainagreementamongthepartiesforthereliefsought.TheNorthernDistrictrequiresthepartiestoattempttostipulatetothere-liefsoughtwhiletheCentralDistrictrequiresthatthemovingpartyadvisethecourtinwritingofitsgoodfaitheffortstocontactcounselforotherpar-tiesinthecasetoadvisethemofthedateandsub-stanceoftheproposedapplicationandwhetherthosepartieswillopposetheapplication.DuetothelackofproceduralguidelinesprovidedbytheCentralDistrictsLocalRule7-19manyCentralDistrictjudgeshaveexpandedtheirproceduresintheirstandingordersrequiringthemovingpartytopaycloseattentiontotherequirementsofitsparticu-larjudge.LitigantsmayalsobewaryofseekingsuchreliefintheCentralDistrictasmanyofthejudgesmakeitclearintheirstandingordersthatexpartemotionsarenotreadilywelcomeunlesstheyareseekingextraordinaryreliefwhichmightnotincludethetypesofadministrativereliefcontem-platedbytheNorthernDistrictsLocalRule7-11.InfactmanyofthejudgesstandingorderscitetoaleadingCentralDistrictcaseinwhichthecourtheldthatanexparteapplicationisonlyjustifiedwhen1theevidenceshowsthatthemovingpartyscausewillbeirreparablyprejudicedunderregularnoticedmotionproceduresand2itisestablishedthatthemovingpartyiswithoutfaultincreatingthecrisisthatrequiresexparterelief.MissionPowerEngineeringCo.v.ContinentalCasualtyCo.883F.Supp.488C.D.Cal.1995.Thiscaseheavilycriti-cizedtheoveruseofexparteapplicationsasathreattotheadversarialsystemgiventhattheoppositionmaynotbeprovidedwithafairopportunitytobeheard.NearlyhalfoftheCentralDistrictjudgesciteMissionPowerEngineeringorotherwisementionthisextraordinaryreliefrequirementwithintheirstandingorders.AfewCentralDistrictjudgesalsothreatensanctionsinresponsetothemisuseofexparteapplications.Anotherdifferencebetweenthetwodistrictsproce-duresistherighttoahearing.WhiletheNorthernDistrictdecidesalladministrativemotionsonthepaperstheCentralDistrictslocalruleissilentonapartysrighttoahearingonanexpartemotiongiv-ingtheindividualjudgesdiscretionastowhethertheywillallowahearing.ManyCentralDistrictjudgesarereluctanttogranthearingsinconnectionwithexparteapplicationsandthemajoritystateintheirstandingordersthatexparteapplicationsarenormallyconsideredonthepapers.SomeCentralDistrictjudgeshavestandingordersthatexplicitlydeclinetoofferhearingsonanyexparteapplica-tions.BecausetheCentralDistrictsLocalRule7-19alsodoesnotspecifythetimingforopposingordecidingexpartemotionsmanyjudgessetthetimingintheirstandingorders.WhiletheNorthernDistrictgivesanon-movingpartyfourdaystoopposeanadminis-trativemotionCentralDistrictjudgesoftenrequirethatanyoppositiontoanexparteapplicationbefiledwithin24hoursoronecourtdayaftertheap-plicationisserved.OtherCentralDistrictjudgesContinuedonPage12