Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
LINCOLN v DAYLIGHT CHEMICAL, et al. - 31 - MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) - 031111646269.31.0

LINCOLN v DAYLIGHT CHEMICAL, et al. - 31 - MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) - 031111646269.31.0

Ratings:

5.0

(1)
|Views: 43|Likes:
Published by Jack Ryan
01/27/2011 31 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): by Judge Andrew J. Guilford: denying 29 Ex Parte Application to Shorten Time for Hearing (twdb) (Entered: 01/27/2011)
01/27/2011 31 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): by Judge Andrew J. Guilford: denying 29 Ex Parte Application to Shorten Time for Hearing (twdb) (Entered: 01/27/2011)

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Law
Published by: Jack Ryan on Jan 28, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/11/2013

pdf

text

original

 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
SACV 10-1573 AG (PLAx)
DateJanuary 27, 2011TitleCHARLES EDWARD LINCOLN III v. DAYLIGHT CHEMICALINFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC., et al.
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 2
Present: TheHonorableANDREW J. GUILFORDLisa BredahlNot PresentDeputy ClerkCourt Reporter / RecorderTape No.Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:Attorneys Present for Defendants:
Proceedings: [IN CHAMBERS] ORDER
 
DENYING EX PARTEAPPLICATION SHORTENING TIME
On January 25, 2011, Plaintiff Charles Edward Lincoln III (“Plaintiff”) filed an ex parteapplication (“Application”) to shorten time for hearing his motion to strike. DefendantsDefendant our Freedoms Foundation, Orly Taitz, Inc., and Appealing Dentistry(“Defendants”) opposed the Application.
 Ex parte
relief should be granted only if the evidence shows “that the moving party’scause will be irreparably prejudiced if the underlying motion is heard according to regularnoticed motion procedures.”
 Mission Power Eng'g Co. v. Continental Cas. Co.
, 883 F.Supp. 488, 492 (C.D. Cal. 1995). Such relief has serious due process implications.
Fuentes v. Shevin
, 407 U.S. 67, 80-82 (1972) (due process requires that affected parties“are entitled to be heard” following “meaningful” notice, except in “extraordinarysituations”);
Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp. of Bay View
, 395 U.S. 337, 339-40 (1969)(“the right to be heard ‘has little reality or worth unless one is informed that the matter ispending and can choose for himself whether to appear or default, acquiesce or contest’”).
Case 8:10-cv-01573-AG -PLA Document 31 Filed 01/27/11 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:768

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->