Case 2:14-cv-08390-DMG-PLA Document 607 Filed 04/02/19 Page 1 of 1 Page ID #:43565

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Case No. CV 14-8390 DMG (PLAx) Date April 2, 2019

Title Bahamas Surgery Center, LLC. v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, et al. Page 1 of 1

Present: The Honorable DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

KANE TIEN NOT REPORTED

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s) Attorneys Present for Defendant(s)

None Present None Present

Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS - ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTION

TO APPOINT INTERIM CLASS COUNSEL [603] AND RENEWED
MOTION FOR INDICATIVE RULING [606]

On April 1, 2019, William C. Hearon and Ahmed Ibrahim (“Attorney Movants”) filed a
Motion for Appointment of Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel, and scheduled it for a hearing on
May 3, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. [Doc. # 603.] The notice of motion admits that the Attorney Movants
did not discharge their obligation to meet and confer under Local Rule 7-3 at least seven days prior
to filing the motion. See id. at 3 (“Moving Parties have filed this Motion prior to the completion
of all meet and confer efforts.”). They claim that their failure to do so is excused by “the need to
ensure that there is interim lead class counsel representing the class in this case as soon as
possible . . . .” See id. Similarly, the Receiver of Egan Avenatti filed a Renewed Motion for
Indicative Ruling that is scheduled for a hearing at the same date and time, wherein he asserts that
“[d]ue to exigent circumstances involving current Class Counsel, the Receiver has filed this
Motion prior to the completion of locally mandated meet and confer efforts.” [Doc. # 606.] Local
Rule 7-3 does not contain any such exigency exception. In any event, the Attorney Movants’ and
the Receiver’s filings do not substantiate the existence of an exigency, especially considering that
appeals of this action are currently pending before the Ninth Circuit and there is no activity at the
trial court whatsoever.1

Due to counsel’s failure to comply with Local Rule 7-3, both motions are DENIED without
prejudice to refiling after compliance. The May 3, 2019 hearing is VACATED. If the Attorney
Movants and/or the Receiver intend to refile their respective motions, they shall first satisfy the
meet and confer requirement with each other and Defense Counsel. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-3
(“[C]ounsel contemplating the filing of any motion shall first contact opposing counsel to discuss
thoroughly, preferably in person, the substance of the contemplated motion and any potential
resolution.” (emphasis added)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

1
To the extent that the Attorney Movants and the Receiver argue that adherence to Local Rule 7-3 will
somehow prejudice the class’s participation in the pending appeals, that contention fails. Ibrahim attests that certain
“highly respected and experienced appellate” attorneys are already counsel of record on appeal, and that the Attorney
Movants “are working alongside” appellate counsel. [Doc. # 603-1 at 3.]

CV-90 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk KT