IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 30, 2012
KELLY CROWE, PLAINTIFF,
RAMA GOGINENI, ET AL.,
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, commenced this action on December 27, 2011, by filing a complaint and paying the required filing fee. The case has been referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21).
Defendant Rama Gogineni's motion to dismiss and motion for an order setting costs to be posted by plaintiff are currently scheduled for hearing before the undersigned on June 15, 2012.*fn1 However, on May 23, 2012, plaintiff filed an ex parte request that the hearing of defendant's motions be continued to July 6, 2012. (Doc. No. 22.) Therein, plaintiff states that he was unable to obtain a response from defendant Gogineni with respect to plaintiff's request for an extension of time and that plaintiff has not sought any previous extensions of time. (Id. at 1.)
Moreover, plaintiff contends that both of defendant's pending motions assert that this action is barred by the doctrine of res judicata as a result of prior litigation in the Placer County Superior Court. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff claims that reconsideration of the dismissal of the Placer County Superior Court case is set for hearing in that court on June 7, 2012. (Id.) Plaintiff notes that his opposition to the motions filed by defendant Gogineni in this matter are due to be filed by June 1, 2012, prior to the hearing in the Placer County Superior Court. (Id.) Accordingly, plaintiff requests a 21-day continuation of the hearing of defendant's motions in this action. Plaintiff has filed a declaration in support of his request. (Doc. No. 22 at 4-5.)
On May 29, 2012, counsel for defendant Gogineni filed an opposition to plaintiff's request. (Doc. No. 23.) Therein, counsel argues that plaintiff's request for a continuance "is simply the continuation of his insufferable ploy to improperly and deceitfully breathe life into the remains of his phantom case." (Doc. No. 23 at 2.) Counsel also asserts that the Placer County Superior Court case "is to be dismissed in any and all events" and that "[t]he only very temporary issue is whether it will be dismissed with or without prejudice." (Id.) In this regard, counsel argues that plaintiff can merely file his opposition to defendant's motions in this matter "under either of the two necessary State court outcomes . . ." (Id.)
The court may grant an initial ex parte extension of time upon the affidavit of counsel that a stipulation extending time cannot reasonably be obtained, explaining the reasons why such a stipulation cannot be obtained and the reasons why the extension is necessary. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 144 (c). Except for one such initial extension, ex parte applications are not ordinarily granted. (Id.) Here, the court finds that plaintiff's initial request for an extension of time has satisfied those requirements.
Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's May 23, 2012 ex parte motion for a continuation of the hearing of defendant Gogineni's motions (Doc No. 22) is granted;
2. The hearing of defendant Gogineni's motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 10) and motion for order setting costs (Doc. No 13) is continued to Friday, July 6, 2012, at 10:00 a.m. at the United States District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California, in Courtroom No. 27 before the undersigned;
3. The Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference previously set for hearing in this matter on July 6, 2012, is vacated; and
4. No further ex parte extensions of time will be granted for this purpose.