Vashisht-Rota v. Howell Management Services

Opinion

APARNA VASHISHT-ROTA, an Case No.: 20-CV-321 JLS (KSC) individual, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT Plaintiff, PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION v. TO RECONSIDER STAY MOTION

HOWELL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, (ECF No. 90) a Utah limited liability company; CHRIS HOWELL, an individual; and JUSTIN SPENCER, an individual, Defendants.

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Aparna Vashisht-Rota’s Motion to Reconsider Stay Motion (“Mot.,” ECF No. 90), which was filed ex parte without obtaining a hearing date from chamber. In the very Order Plaintiff now challenges, the Court admonished Plaintiff that “ex parte motions are disfavored,” ECF No. 87 at 3 (quoting Ayestas v. Davis, 584 U.S. __, 138 S. Ct. 1080, 1091 (2018)), and therefore are appropriate only when “‘the moving party’s cause will be irreparably prejudiced if the underlying motion is heard according to regular noticed motion procedures’ and ‘that the moving party is without fault in creating the crisis that requires ex parte relief, or that the crisis occurred as a result of excusable neglect.’” Id. (quoting Mission Power Eng’g Co. v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 883 F. Supp. 488, 492 (C.D. Cal. 1995)). The Court closed by noting that, having “outlined . . . the extremely limited circumstances in which the filing of an ex parte request is proper[, Court expects Plaintiff to refrain in the future from filing ex parte requests when the appropriate circumstances do not exist for such a filing.” Maxson v. Mosaic Sales Sols. U.S. Operating Co., No. 2:14-CV-02116-APG, 2015 WL 4661981, at *2 (D. Nev. July 29, 2015). Plaintiff has made no such showing in the instant Motion; accordingly, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's Motion. Plaintiff may refile her Motion /either (1) after calling chambers to obtain a hearing date, or (2) in accordance with Civil Local Rule 83.3(g) and the above-enumerated principles. Dated: September 21, 2020 □□ ja Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge