1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NOVEDADES Y SERVICIOS, INC.; and Case No.: 25-CV-886 JLS (DDL)

ESPERANZA GOMEZ ESCOBAR,

12

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

Plaintiffs, 13 PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS’ v. MOTION TO STAY DISTRICT 14

COURT PROCEEDINGS PENDING

FINANCIAL CRIMES ENFORCEMENT

15 APPEAL NETWORK, et al.,

16 Defendants. (ECF No. 60) 17

18 19 20 21 22 Presently before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Stay District Court Proceedings 23 Pending Appeal (“Mot.,” ECF No. 60), which was filed ex parte. In their Motion, 24 Defendants represent that they conferred with opposing counsel, but that Plaintiffs oppose 25 the requested stay. Mot. at 2. This representation, however, was made in the absence of 26 an affidavit or declaration as required by the Civil Local Rules. See S.D. Cal. CivLR 27 83.3(g)(2) (prohibiting motions from being “made ex parte unless it appears by affidavit or 28 declaration” that certain requirements are met). Yet no less than two weeks ago, the Court 1 offered Defendants “a refresher” on ex parte procedures—both with respect to the Local 2 Rules and with respect to ex parte practice more generally—after Defendants violated Civil 3 Local Rule 83.3(g)(2) for the second time. See generally ECF No. 54 (noting that “ex 4 parte motions ‘are rarely justified,’ only to be used ‘where there is a temporal urgency such 5 that immediate and irreparable harm will occur if there is any delay in obtaining relief’” 6 (quoting Mission Power Eng’g Co. v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 883 F. Supp. 488, 490 (C.D. Cal. 7 1995))). 8 Last time, the Court forgave Defendants’ noncompliance with the Civil Local Rules, 9 but this time, no such accommodation is warranted as it is not this Court’s role to repeatedly 10 educate the Parties on local rule provisions. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion is DENIED 11 WITHOUT PREJUDICE for the simple fact that Defendants have now violated Civil 12 Local Rule 83.3(g)(2) for the third time in just over one month. See S.D. Cal. Civ LR 83.1 13 (providing for “any and all sanctions authorized by statute or rule or within the inherent 14 power of the Court” for failure to comply with the Civil Local Rules, the Federal Rules of 15 Civil Procedure, or a Court order). The Court stresses that its resolution of the instant 16 Motion is on procedural grounds only, and that the Government is free to renew its Motion 17 so long as it complies with the applicable Civil Local Rules. 18 In any event, it is difficult to see how this is one of “the unusually urgent occasion[s] 19 when ‘the tomatoes are about to spoil or the yacht is about to leave the jurisdiction.’” ECF 20 No. 54 (quoting Mission Power Eng’g Co., 883 F. Supp. at 491–92). At the moment, the 21 Government has no deadline in this matter until its cross-motion for summary judgment, 22 which is due on September 29, 2025, over two months from now. ECF No. 57 at 1. The 23 Government’s position is all the more perplexing given that it joined a scheduling proposal 24 just ten days ago asking for the briefing schedule that the Court subsequently adopted, 25 begging the question of what change of circumstances so suddenly emerged necessitating 26 the requested emergency relief of staying the Government’s own requested briefing 27 schedule. See ECF No. 55. The Government’s flip in position went entirely 28 unacknowledged in its Motion, but in the event the Government wishes to renew its request 1 ||to stay proceedings, it SHALL address why the Court was wrong to rely on the 2 ||representations made in the Joint Proposed Schedule filed on July 7, 2025. And the 3 ||Government is advised to reconsider whether ex parte relief is necessary in this situation, 4 ||or whether the usual briefing schedule for a noticed motion is the more appropriate course. 5 || See S.D. Cal. CivLR 7.1(e). 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 \\Dated: July 17, 2025 psi AL. brmonaitenue- 8 on. Janis L. Sammartino 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28