UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 5, 2009
STEVE ADACHI, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
CARLYLE/GALAXY SAN PEDRO L.P., ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CONTINUE HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
Plaintiffs move ex parte to continue Defendant's motion to compel arbitration, currently calendared for January 16, 2009, on the ground that Plaintiffs desire to conduct discovery related to their argument that the arbitration provision is unconscionable. Where one party claims that any part of a contract is unconscionable, California Civil Code Section 1670.5(b) provides that parties to a contract "shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present evidence as to its commercial setting, purpose, and effect to aid the court in making the determination." Plaintiffs fail to identify any specific outstanding discovery bearing on the issue of unconscionability. The court denies the motion to continue without prejudice for two reasons. First, Plaintiffs fail to sufficiently identify how the outstanding discovery may assist Plaintiffs in establishing the unconscionability of the arbitration provision. Second, it appears that Plaintiffs failed to meet and confer prior to filing the ex parte application as required by Local Rule 83.3(h). The meet and confer requirements of the Local Rules are not discretionary, but mandatory.
In sum, the application to continue the hearing date on Defendants' motion to compel arbitration is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.