Case3:15-cv-02228-RS Document82 Filed06/29/15 Page1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
LILY JEUNG, et al.,

10

Case No. 15-cv-02228-RS

Plaintiffs,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

v.

ORDER DENYING "EX PARTE"
RELIEF, VACATING HEARING

12
YELP INC.,

13

Defendant.
14
15
Plaintiffs have filed what they have labeled as an “ex parte” motion to shorten time, a

16
17

request for injunctive relief against the California State Bar, and a motion for leave to amend their

18

complaint to add the Bar as a defendant, as well as to add the claims upon which the request for

19

injunctive relief is based.1 Plaintiffs seek to have their motions heard on July 9, 2015, at the time

20

presently set for other motion practice in this case.
Plaintiff’s counsel is currently the subject of disciplinary proceedings by the Bar. Counsel

21
22

asserts those proceedings were wrongfully initiated at the instigation of defendant Yelp and its

23

attorneys in response to his attempts to pursue his clients’ claims in this action. Although the Bar

24

proceedings apparently include some inquiry into counsel’s conduct in this matter, there is no

25
26
27
28

1

A motion to shorten time under Local Rule 6-3 is not brought ex parte nor have plaintiffs
established grounds to seek any other relief without notice. Nevertheless, notwithstanding the “ex
parte” label, plaintiffs’ papers were in fact served on the existing defendant automatically through
the ECF system, and plaintiffs assert that notice was also given to the proposed new parties.

 Case3:15-cv-02228-RS Document82 Filed06/29/15 Page2 of 2

1

basis for joining in this putative class action any claims he or his individual clients may have

2

related to, or arising from, the disciplinary action.2 Nor, even if counsel or his clients were able to

3

state viable claims related to the disciplinary proceedings would there likely be any independent

4

federal jurisdiction over such claims. Accordingly, both leave to amend and the request for

5

various forms of injunctive relief against the Bar are hereby denied.
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b) the motions previously set for hearing on July 9, 2015

6
7

are suitable for disposition without oral argument. The hearing is therefore vacated.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Dated: June 29, 2015
______________________________________
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

2

Nothing in this order should be understood as implying that counsel or plaintiffs have made even
a prima facie case that they have cognizable claims against the Bar, or against Yelp or its counsel
arising from the initiation or pursuit of the disciplinary proceedings.

28

CASE NO.

2

15-cv-02228-RS