Mission Power Engineering Co. v. Continental Casualty Co.
District Court, C.D. California
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER
EDWARDS, United States Magistrate Judge.
“Ex parte applications have reached epidemic proportions in the Central District.” Judge Rymer warned us of this in 1989 in In re Intermagnetics America, Inc., 101 B.R. 191 (C.D.Cal.1989). Since then the abusive use of ex parte motions has worsened. This abuse is detrimental to the administration of justice and, unless moderated, will increasingly erode the quality of litigation and present ever-increasing problems for the parties, their lawyers, and for the court.
Before the court now is plaintiff’s ex parte application…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- United States v. Nutri-Cology, Inc., D/B/A Allergy Research Group Biocurrents, Inc. Stephen A. Levine Susan D. LevineCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
- Gumport v. China International Trust & Investment Corp. (In Re Intermagnetics America, Inc.)District Court, C.D. California · 1989
3Cited by126 opinions
- Cardoza v. Bloomin' Brands, Inc.District Court, D. Nevada · 2015
- Yokohama Tire Corp. v. Dealers Tire Supply, Inc.District Court, D. Arizona · 2001
- Horne v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.District Court, C.D. California · 2013
- Kirk Erichsen v. County of OrangeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2017
- Copelan v. Infinity Ins. Co.District Court, C.D. California · 2019
121 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.