(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DENYING THE GOVERNMENT'S EX PARTE APPLICATION… — USA v. Western Distribution, LLC. et al (Dkt. 132)

Summary

Document 132, filed 02/12/25 in Case No. 5:24-cv-02552-SSS and 5:21-cr-00170-SSS-2, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, is Civil Minutes - General dated February 12, 2025 by The Honorable Sunshine S. Sykes, United States District Judge, in Carl Bradley Johannson v. United States of America. The Court denies the government's ex parte application for an extension of time to file its opposition to Petitioner's habeas petition [Dkt. 6], saying the government did not cite the ex parte standard or explain why it is entitled to ex parte relief. The government is reminded that ex parte relief is not awarded as of right. On its own motion, the Court continues the government's opposition deadline to April 11, 2025 and Petitioner's reply deadline to May 16, 2025.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

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

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cacd.826563.132.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)