Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 22STCV17652, Date: 2023-04-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV17652    Hearing Date: April 21, 2023    Dept: 76

RULING RE: DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE APPLICATION

The Court finds this ex parte application suitable for decision in chambers without argument.

The Court has reviewed the ex parte application filed by Defendant, which has a caption indicating it is an application to “Modify Minute Order to Conform to Ruling on Depositions.”  However, the text of the application is a request for an order staying this case pending the outcome of a parallel proceeding—an ex parte application presented to the Court months ago.

After reviewing the application, the Court saw that Defendant filed a notice of errata indicating that the wrong document was “inadvertently uploaded” at 10:00 a.m. on April 20, 2023, and the correct document was uploaded at 10:30 a.m.  However, as of of 3:24 p.m on April 20, 2023, it appears that the “corrected” document has not been electronically filed.  Defendant did not deliver a courtesy copy of the application papers to Department 76, which could have provided the Court with a basis for considering the request.

California Rule of Court 3.1201 requires that an ex parte application be made in writing, and must include (1) an application stating the relief requested; (2) a declaration making the factual showing required by Rule of Court 3.1202(c); (3) a declaration based on personal knowledge of the notice required by Rule of Court 3.1204; (4) a memorandum; and (5) a proposed order.  The instant ex parte application, as filed, does not state the relief requested, does not contain a declaration making the factual showing required by CRC 3.1202(c), does not have a coherent supporting memorandum, and is not accompanied by a proposed order delineating the requested relief. 

The ex parte application is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with Rule of Court 3.1201.  Any renewed application must comply with the Rules of Court.