Rebecca Bamberger Works, LLC dba Bam Communications, et al. v. Llorente & Cuenca USA, Inc., et al.

S.D. California

Rebecca Bamberger Works, LLC dba Bam Communications, et al. v. Llorente & Cuenca USA, Inc., et al.

DecidedMay 6, 2026

Docket3:26-cv-00884

StatusUnknown

This text of Rebecca Bamberger Works, LLC dba Bam Communications, et al. v. Llorente & Cuenca USA, Inc., et al. (Rebecca Bamberger Works, LLC dba Bam Communications, et al. v. Llorente & Cuenca USA, Inc., et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rebecca Bamberger Works, LLC dba Bam Communications, et al. v. Llorente & Cuenca USA, Inc., et al., (S.D. Cal. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 REBECCA BAMBERGER WORKS, Case No.: 26-CV-884 JLS (DDL) LLC dba BAM COMMUNICATIONS, 12 et al., ORDER (1) SETTING BRIEFING 13 SCHEDULE FOR DEFENDANTS’ Plaintiffs, MOTION TO DISMISS AND (2) 14 v. RESCHEDULING HEARING 15 LLORENTE & CUENCA USA, INC., et (ECF No. 27) 16 al., 17 Defendants. 18 19 Presently before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint 20 (ECF No. 27). The Court notes that the Motion lists a hearing date of June 1, 2026, at 1:30 21 P.M. However, Defendants’ Counsel failed to obtain this hearing date from chambers as 22 required by Civil Local Rule 7.1(b). See S.D. Cal. CivLR 7.1(b) (“All hearing dates for 23 any matters on which a ruling is required must be obtained from the Clerk of the judge to 24 whom the case is assigned.”). 25 “The requirement that a party obtain a hearing date from the judge’s clerk is no 26 empty formality; it is a rule of substantial importance. Under Civil Local Rule 7.1(e)(1)– 27 (3), the hearing date sets in motion a calendar for the filing of opposition and reply briefs.” 28 Kashin v. Kent, No. 02-CV-2495-LAB(WMC), 2007 WL 1975435, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 1 2007), aff'd, 342 F. App’x 341 (9th Cir. 2009). “Furthermore, permitting parties to 2 ||impose hearing dates on the Court impairs the Court’s ability to manage its own calendar 3 |}and to monitor the timeliness of motions.” Jd. at *2.. While Counsel’s failure to comply 4 the Civil Local Rules is grounds to reject the filing, see id. (“Failure to obey the 5 || requirements of Civil Local rule 7.1(b) and (e)(1) regarding hearing dates was therefore a 6 || sufficient basis on which to reject the first attempted filing.”); see also S.D. Cal. CivLR 7 || 83.1(a) (providing that failure to comply with the Civil Local Rules “may be grounds for 8 ||imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or rule or within the 9 || inherent power of the Court’), the Court, in its discretion, SETS a briefing schedule for the 10 || Motion in lieu of striking the Motion. However, the Court cautions the Parties to comply 11 |} with the Civil Local Rules henceforth. 12 The Court finds the Motion proper to consider in conjunction with the pending 13 || Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 6). Therefore, the Court will hear the Motion 14 |/to Dismiss at the June 25, 2026, hearing at 1:30 P.M. See ECF No. 26. The June 1, 2026, 15 ||hearing is VACATED. Plaintiffs SHALL FILE their opposition to the Motion on or 16 || before May 28, 2026. Defendants MAY FILE their reply, if any, on or before June 4, 17 2026. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: May 6, 2026 . L .

21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 REBECCA BAMBERGER WORKS, Case No.: 26-CV-884 JLS (DDL) LLC dba BAM COMMUNICATIONS, 12 et al., ORDER (1) SETTING BRIEFING 13 SCHEDULE FOR DEFENDANTS’ Plaintiffs, MOTION TO DISMISS AND (2) 14 v. RESCHEDULING HEARING 15 LLORENTE & CUENCA USA, INC., et (ECF No. 27) 16 al., 17 Defendants. 18 19 Presently before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint 20 (ECF No. 27). The Court notes that the Motion lists a hearing date of June 1, 2026, at 1:30 21 P.M. However, Defendants’ Counsel failed to obtain this hearing date from chambers as 22 required by Civil Local Rule 7.1(b). See S.D. Cal. CivLR 7.1(b) (“All hearing dates for 23 any matters on which a ruling is required must be obtained from the Clerk of the judge to 24 whom the case is assigned.”). 25 “The requirement that a party obtain a hearing date from the judge’s clerk is no 26 empty formality; it is a rule of substantial importance. Under Civil Local Rule 7.1(e)(1)– 27 (3), the hearing date sets in motion a calendar for the filing of opposition and reply briefs.” 28 Kashin v. Kent, No. 02-CV-2495-LAB(WMC), 2007 WL 1975435, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 1 2007), aff'd, 342 F. App’x 341 (9th Cir. 2009). “Furthermore, permitting parties to 2 ||impose hearing dates on the Court impairs the Court’s ability to manage its own calendar 3 |}and to monitor the timeliness of motions.” Jd. at *2.. While Counsel’s failure to comply 4 the Civil Local Rules is grounds to reject the filing, see id. (“Failure to obey the 5 || requirements of Civil Local rule 7.1(b) and (e)(1) regarding hearing dates was therefore a 6 || sufficient basis on which to reject the first attempted filing.”); see also S.D. Cal. CivLR 7 || 83.1(a) (providing that failure to comply with the Civil Local Rules “may be grounds for 8 ||imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or rule or within the 9 || inherent power of the Court’), the Court, in its discretion, SETS a briefing schedule for the 10 || Motion in lieu of striking the Motion. However, the Court cautions the Parties to comply 11 |} with the Civil Local Rules henceforth. 12 The Court finds the Motion proper to consider in conjunction with the pending 13 || Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 6). Therefore, the Court will hear the Motion 14 |/to Dismiss at the June 25, 2026, hearing at 1:30 P.M. See ECF No. 26. The June 1, 2026, 15 ||hearing is VACATED. Plaintiffs SHALL FILE their opposition to the Motion on or 16 || before May 28, 2026. Defendants MAY FILE their reply, if any, on or before June 4, 17 2026. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: May 6, 2026 . L .

21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Rebecca Bamberger Works, LLC dba Bam Communications, et al. v. Llorente & Cuenca USA, Inc., et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rebecca-bamberger-works-llc-dba-bam-communications-et-al-v-llorente-casd-2026.