The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Margaret M. Morrow
Present: The Honorable MARGARET M. MORROW
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:
Proceedings: Order Remanding Action to Los Angeles Superior Court for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction
On September 8, 2010, plaintiffs Steve Morales, Joe Morales, and Michael Chico commenced this action against defendants Prolease PEO, LLC, Clarm Corporation, and Art Navarette.*fn1 Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on November 22, 2011, asserting claims for wrongful termination, intentional infliction of emotional distress, failure to pay overtime, failure to pay wages owed on termination, unfair competition, and failure to provide meal and rest periods.*fn2 Defendants Prolease and Navarette removed the action on December 15, 2011, initially asserting that the court had original jurisdiction under 12 U.S.C. § 1441(b) because plaintiffs alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.*fn3
On December 20, 2011, plaintiffs moved ex parte to remand the action to state court.*fn4 Defendants Prolease and Navarette oppose the application.*fn5 Pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 7-15, the court finds this matter appropriate for decision without oral argument.
The "opportunities for legitimate ex parte applications are extremely limited." In re Intermagnetics America, Inc., 101 B.R. 191, 193 (C.D. Cal. 1989); see also Mission Power Engineering Co. v. Continental Casualty Co., 883 F.Supp. 488, 489 (C.D. Cal. 1995) (stating that to be proper, an ex parte application must demonstrate that there is good cause to allow the moving party to "go to the head of the line in front of all other litigants and receive special treatment"). As the court in Intermagnetics stated:
". . . [E]x parte applications contravene the structure and spirit of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this court. Both contemplate that noticed motions should be the rule and not the exception. Timetables for the submission of responding papers and for the setting of hearings are intended to provide a framework for the fair, orderly, and efficient resolution of disputes. Ex parte applications throw the system out of whack. They impose an unnecessary administrative burden on the court and an unnecessary adversarial burden on opposing counsel who are required to make a hurried response under pressure, usually for no good reason. They demand priority consideration, where ...