Case 2:22-cv-02333-MEMF-AS Document 125 Filed 03/18/24 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:804
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
`
`Case No. 2:22-cv-02333-MEMF-AS
`Shaheryar Khan v. Adam Kraemer, et al.
`Title
`
`Date: March 18, 2024
`
`Present: The Honorable: Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong
`
`Damon Berry
`Deputy Clerk
`
`Not Reported
`Court Reporter / Recorder
`
`Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
`
`Attorneys Present for Defendants:
`
`Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE: Plaintiff’s Notice and Application for Ex
`Parte Motion for An Extension of Time to File First Amended Complaint [ECF No. 95]
`
`The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff Shaheryar Khan’s Ex Parte Application for an
`Extension of Time to File First Amended Complaint (ECF Nos. 115, 120, 122) and Amended Ex
`Parte Application for Extension of Time to File First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 123,
`collectively, the “Ex Parte Filings”), as well as Defendant Google LLC’s Opposition to
`Shaheryar Khan’s Ex Parte Motion for an Extension of time to File an Amended Complaint
`(ECF No. 118).
`
`In the Central District, a party seeking ex parte relief must comply with (1) the Local
`Rules and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and (2) the standards set forth in Mission Power
`Engineering Co. v. Continental Casualty Co., 883 F. Supp. 488, 492 (C.D. Cal. 1995).
`
`Local Rule 7-19.1 requires a party filing an ex parte application to:
`
`L.R. 7-19 Ex Parte Application. An application for an ex parte order shall be
`accompanied by a memorandum containing, if known, the name, address,
`telephone number and e-mail address of counsel for the opposing party, the
`reasons for the seeking of an ex parte order, and points and authorities in support
`thereof. An applicant also shall lodge the proposed ex parte order.
`
`CV-90 (03/15)
`
`Civil Minutes – General
`
`Page 1 of 3
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02333-MEMF-AS Document 125 Filed 03/18/24 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:805
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
`
`
`Case No. 2:22-cv-02333-MEMF-AS
`Shaheryar Khan v. Adam Kraemer, et al.
`Title
`
`Date: March 18, 2024
`
`
`
`L.R. 7-19.1 Notice of Application. It shall be the duty of the attorney so applying
`(a) to make reasonable, good faith efforts orally to advise counsel for all other
`parties, if known, of the date and substance of the proposed ex parte application
`and (b) to advise the Court in writing and under oath of efforts to contact other
`counsel and whether any other counsel, after such advice, opposes the application.
`C.D. Cal. R. 7-19, 7-19.1.1
`
`
`Here, several of Khan’s Ex Parte Filings all indicate that Khan reached out to opposing
`counsel to alert them about the ex parte filings prior to filing. See, e.g., ECF No. 115 at 2–3, ECF
`No. 123 at 2. Thus, Khan has complied with the notice portion of Local Rule 7-19.1
`
`
`Under Mission Power, a party seeking ex parte relief must establish (1) that the
`requesting party will be irreparably prejudiced if the motion is heard on a normal schedule and
`(2) that the requesting party did not create the crisis requiring ex parte relief.
`
`
`Here, Khan does not explicitly discuss the prejudice he would face if his motion were
`heard in accordance with regular procedures. However, the Court notes that Khan asks for an
`extension to file his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), see e.g., ECF No. 115 at 2, that would
`moot the pending motions to dismiss, which could be granted with prejudice. See ECF No. 66.
`Thus, it is conceivable that Khan could be irreparably prejudiced.
`
`
`However, the second Mission Power factor does not weigh in Khan’s favor. Khan has
`moved several times to extend the deadline to file his FAC—originally April 21, 2023, almost a
`full year ago. Khan states that more time is necessary because he needs to retain counsel and re-
`draft his FAC due to a hacking incident. ECF No. 115 at 2. While the hacking incident is new,
`each of Khan’s prior requests have reiterated Khan’s need to secure counsel. Khan also states
`that he is still under treatment for his medical conditions. ECF No. 115 at 2. Although the Court
`understands that medical issues are beyond Khan’s control, the deadline cannot be extended
`indefinitely until Khan’s personal health issues are resolved. The Court has provided Khan with
`ample time—a little over 10 months measured from April 25, 2023, the date the Court granted
`Khan’s first ex parte, to present day—to procure counsel and file a FAC. The Court thus
`
`
`1 Pro se litigants must comply with the Local Rules. L.R. 83-2.2.3.
`
`
`CV-90 (03/15)
`
`Civil Minutes – General
`
`Page 2 of 3
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02333-MEMF-AS Document 125 Filed 03/18/24 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:806
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
`
`
`Case No. 2:22-cv-02333-MEMF-AS
`Shaheryar Khan v. Adam Kraemer, et al.
`Title
`
`Date: March 18, 2024
`
`
`DENIES Khan’s Ex Parte Filings. The Court will issue a separate order setting a hearing on the
`pending motions to dismiss.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Initials of Preparer
`
`:
` DBE
`
`
`CV-90 (03/15)
`
`Civil Minutes – General
`
`Page 3 of 3
`
`