Madrid
Madrid v. Lazer Spot, Inc.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10 CONRADO MADRID, Case No. 1:19-cv-00669-DAD-JLT Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING EX PARTE REQUEST
TO AMEND THE CASE SCHEDULE
v. (Doc. 48) LAZER SPOT, INC.,
Defendant. 16 The plaintiff seeks an extension of time ex parte, to file non-dispositive motions. (Doc. 48) The rationale for the request is that the parties have filed competing motions to stay (Docs. 35, 47): the plaintiff seeks to stay this action to allow arbitration to proceed and the defense seeks to stay the arbitration in favor of the action filed here. Id. Upon the stipulation of the parties, the Court is scheduled to hear these motions on June 2, 2020. (Doc. 46) For the reasons set forth below, the request to amend the case schedule (Doc. 48) is DENIED. I. Analysis As an initial matter, the Court notes that plaintiff’s counsel filed the request to amend the case schedule ex parte—rather than via a noticed motion—with little explanation for his employing this extraordinary method. Local Rule 144(c). …