UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIACIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. LA CV11-01315 JAK (CWx) Date August 16, 2012Title Kenneth Eade v. Investorshub.com, Inc., et al.
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 2
Present: The Honorable JOHN A. KRONSTADT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGEAndrea Keifer Not PresentDeputy ClerkCourt Reporter / RecorderAttorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendant:Not Present Not Present
Proceedings:(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE MOTION TOAPPEAR BY TELEPHONE (Dkt. 80)
The Court has received the Ex Parte Motion (“Application”) of Plaintiff Kenneth Eade (“Plaintiff”) toappear by telephone at the October 1, 2012 Status Conference (Dkt. 80) and the Opposition to theApplication filed by Defendant, Investorshub.com (“Defendant”). Dkt. 81. For the reasons set forth inthis Order, Plaintiff’s request is denied.The Court set the Status Conference for October 1, 2012, by its Order of July 2, 2012. Dkt. 79. ThatOrder followed a status conference on that date at which Plaintiff failed to appear, notwithstanding hisbeing ordered to do so. Thus, the Court had denied Plaintiff’s untimely and procedurally improperrequest to appear telephonically at the July 2, 2012 hearing. Dkt. 77. The July 2, 2012 hearing hadbeen set by the Court on March 26, 2012 (Dkt. 72) following a hearing at which the Court imposedsanctions of $2500 against Plaintiff, but stayed the enforcement of the award in light of representationsmade by Plaintiff concerning his financial condition. Thus, having accepted Plaintiff’s representationsand granted him certain resulting relief, one purpose of the July 2, 2012 hearing was to hear from theparties with respect to the Plaintiff’s financial status following the exchange of information, including thatto be provided by Plaintiff at a debtor’s examination. The Court’s March 26, 2012 Order also permittedPlaintiff to seek relief from the award of $2500 in sanctions based on his financial condition.As the Court noted in its July 2, 2012 Order, Plaintiff’s failure to appear at a hearing the Court had setas part of its accommodation of Plaintiff given his asserted financial condition, limited the Court’s abilityto hear from Plaintiff with respect to a number of issues that relate to his financial condition, therebylimiting the effectiveness of the hearing. Although the Court lifted the stay of the enforcement of thesanctions award of $2500, it set the October 1, 2012 hearing to determine the status of the matter,including the status of the examination of Plaintiff as debtor. The Court has continued to take thesesteps as part of its obligation to oversee and manage this matter.As noted, Plaintiff seeks to appear telephonically at the October 1, 2012 Status Conference. He statesthat he is a permanent resident of France, and that travel to the United States to attend the October 1,2012 hearing would impose a financial burden given the cost of travel to, and housing in, the UnitedStates. The Court finds these explanations unconvincing because there is no evidence presented by
Case 2:11-cv-01315-JAK -CW Document 83 Filed 08/16/12 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:1313