Court filing
(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DENYING THE GOVERNMENT'S EX PARTE APPLICATION… — USA v. Western Distribution, LLC. et al (Dkt. 132)
Filed February 12, 2025 in Carl Bradley Johansson; one of 66 filings from this case.
Record facts
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Central District of California |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2025-02-12 |
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California · No. 5:21-cr-00170-JGB · Doc. 132 · 2025-02-12 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
Page 1 of 2 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk iv UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES— GENERAL Case No. 5:24-cv-02552-SSS & 5:21-cr-00170-SSS-2 Date February 12, 2025 Title Carl Bradley Johannson v. United States of America United States of America v. Carl Bradley Johansson Present: The Honorable SUNSHINE S. SYKES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Irene Vazquez Not Reported Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s): None Present None Present Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DENYING THE GOVERNMENT’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE ANSWER [DKT. 6] AND CONTINUING THE BRIEFING SCHEDULE The government applies ex parte for an order extending time to file the government’s opposition to Petitioner’s habeas petition. [Dkt. 6]. Ex parte relief is justified if the applying party can show that “(1) there is a threat of immediate or irreparable injury; (2) there is danger that notice to the other party may result in the destruction of evidence or the party's flight; or (3) the party seeks a routine procedural order that cannot be obtained through a regularly noticed motion (i.e., to file an overlong brief or shorten the time within which a motion may be brought).” United States v. Overby, No. 5:23-cr-00151-SSS (C.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2023) (quoting Horne v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 969 F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1205 (C.D. Cal. 2013)). “An applying party must also show that ‘it is without fault in creating the crisis that requires ex parte relief, or that the crisis occurred as a result of excusable neglect.’” Id. at 5-6 (quoting Mission Power Eng’g Co. v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 883 F. Supp. 488, 492 (C.D. Cal. 1995)). Here, the government does not cite to the ex parte standard and, as such, cannot and does not explain why it is entitled to ex parte relief. For these reasons, Case 5:21-cr-00170-JGB Document 132 Filed 02/12/25 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:1175 Page 2 of 2 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk iv the ex parte application is DENIED. The government is reminded that ex parte relief is not awarded as of right, in future applications, the government must explain why it is entitled to such relief. Considering the facts of this case, the Court, on its own motion, continues the deadline for the government’s opposition brief to April 11, 2025 and Petitioner’s reply brief to May 16, 2025. IT IS SO ORDERED. Case 5:21-cr-00170-JGB Document 132 Filed 02/12/25 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:1176
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.cacd.826563.132.0.pdf
- Size
- 132,963 bytes
- SHA-256
- f65f87e7b5546d6740ea5f53ad94a72a8ace502c7189d189cb6039fd66915035
- Original
- PACER (login required)