1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ABANOOB ABDEL-MALAK, Case No. 5:20-cv-00322-JWH-KKx

12 Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX

13 v. PARTE APPLICATION FOR

EMERGENCY PROTECTIVE

14 JOHN DOE, et al., ORDER AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER [Dkt. No. 44] 15 Defendants.

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 On November 17, 2020, Plaintiff Abanoob Abdel-Malak moved ex parte 2 for an emergency protective order and temporary restraining order, among other 3 relief.1 For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s Application is DENIED. 4 Through the Application, Plaintiff seeks an emergency order on grounds 5 that are mostly unintelligible. Plaintiff’s Application appears to be related to the 6 relief sought by Plaintiff in his prior applications, each of which this Court 7 denied. Regardless, Plaintiff has not made the requisite showing for entry of an 8 emergency protective order or temporary restraining order, let alone on an 9 ex parte basis. “The opportunities for legitimate ex parte applications are 10 extremely limited.” Lum v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Case 11 No. CV 11-09751 MMM (JCx), 2012 WL 13012454, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 12 2012). To justify ex parte relief, the moving party must make two showings: 13 (1) “the evidence must show that the moving party’s cause will be irreparably 14 prejudiced if the underlying motion is heard according to regular noticed motion 15 procedures”; and (2) “it must be established that the moving party is without 16 fault in creating the crisis that requires ex parte relief, or that the crisis occurred 17 as a result of excusable neglect.” Mission Power Engineering Co. v. Continental 18 Cas. Co., 883 F. Supp. 488, 492 (C.D. Cal. 1995). 19 Putting aside the merits of the relief that Plaintiff seeks, Plaintiff has failed 20 to make any intelligible argument why the instant Application cannot be heard in 21 accordance with regularly noticed motion procedures. It is not appropriate for 22 Plaintiff to seek the relief at issue on an ex parte basis. In addition, Plaintiff failed 23 to comply with L.R. 7-19, which sets forth the requirements for making an 24 ex parte application. 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 1 Pet’r’s Ex Parte Appl. for an Emergency Protective Order and Temporary 1 Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Application is DENIED. 2 IT ISSO ORDERED.

MOL

4|| Dated: November 24, 2020 .

5 SRITED: oR TES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28