Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Yucaipa Corporate Initiatives Fund v. Hawaiian Airlines

United States District Court, C.D. California

December 22, 2014

Yucaipa Corporate Initiatives Fund
v.
Hawaiian Airlines

For Yucaipa Corporate Initiatives Fund I LP, a Delaware Limited Partnership, Plaintiff: David B Hazlehurst, LEAD ATTORNEY, Latham and Watkins LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Jennifer L Barry, LEAD ATTORNEY, Latham and Watkins LLP, San Diego, CA.

For Hawaiian Airlines Inc, a Delaware corporation, Defendant: Ekwan E Rhow, LEAD ATTORNEY, Douglas A Fretty, Bird Marella Boxer Wolpert Nessim Drooks Lincenberg and Rhow, Los Angeles, CA; Colin O Miwa, Martin E Hsia, Megan A Suehiro, PRO HAC VICE, Cades Schutte LLP, Honolulu, HI; David H Chao, Bird Marella Boxer Wolpert Nesrim Drooks and Lincenberg PC, Los Angeles, CA.

OPINION

The Honorable Michael R. Wilner.

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Defendant Hawaiian Airlines filed a discovery motion today. (Docket # 105.) Hawaiian noticed the matter for hearing in February 2015. Hawaiian's attorney states that Defendant filed the motion after " conferences of counsel in compliance with Local Rules 7-3 and 37-1." (Docket # 105 at 2.) However, the motion itself is not in the joint format expressly required by Rule 37-2.

Local Rule 37-2.4 states that the Court " will not consider any discovery motion in the absence of a joint stipulation or a declaration from counsel for the moving party establishing" that the opposing party refused to participate in the joint filing process. The moving papers fail to address why the motion does not comply with the practice required under the Local Rules. Moreover, although the Court has been flexible in its dealing with the lawyers in this consent case, it did not relieve the parties of their obligation to comply with the important joint filing procedure under the rules.

Therefore, Defendant is ordered to show cause why the motion should not be denied for failure to comply with the Local Rules of Court. Defendant's response to this OSC (not to exceed 5 pages) will be due by or before December 31, 2014. Plaintiff will not be obliged to respond to the motion until the OSC is resolved.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.