UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 9, 2012
TITLE CHARLES JEANNEL
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Present: The Honorable Andrew J. Guilford
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Lisa Bredahl Not Present Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:
Proceedings: [IN CHAMBERS]
ORDER DENYING EMERGENCY MOTION
Late in the afternoon of April 9, 2012, the Court received what purports to be an "Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Appeal" ("Emergency Motion"). A title page was accompanied by a mass of other documents, filed in four separate docket entries, without explanation. (Dkt Nos. 6-9.) For many reasons, the filing provides inadequate support for the requested relief. See, e.g., Mission Power Eng'g Co. v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 883 F. Supp. 488, 490 (C.D. Cal. 1995) (finding that "ex Parte motions are rarely justified"); Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 80-82 (1972) (due process requires that affected parties "are entitled to be heard" following "meaningful" notice, except in "extraordinary situations"); Sniadach v. Family Fin. Corp. of Bay View, 395 U.S. 337, 339-40 (1969) ("the right to be heard has little reality or worth unless one is informed that the matter is pending and can choose for himself whether to appear or default, acquiesce or contest").
The Emergency Motion is DENIED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.