civil-litigation court-watch

***DENIED BY ORDER OF Judge Alicemarie H. Stotler*** proposed order garnting Ex parte application for relief from local rule 7-3a 657-1 (pj) (Entered: 07/10/2003)

Active Court order issued Sign in to follow this case
Share mail
Advertisement
description

Case Summary

Judge Alicemarie H. Stotler denied the proposed order granting the defendants' ex parte application for relief from local rule 7-3a. This denial maintains the existing procedural requirements.

Latest development

***DENIED BY ORDER OF Judge Alicemarie H. Stotler*** proposed order garnting ex parte application for relief from local rule 7-3a 657-1 (pj) (Entered: 07/10/2003)

Order · May 10, 2026

Judge Alicemarie issued an order.

Key Issues

  • Denial of ex parte application
  • Local rule 7-3a enforcement
  • Procedural ruling
smart_toy Juryvine case summary generated from primary court records. How we verify our work.
fact_check

Docket Snapshot

account_balance

Court

Court not identified

Awaiting court metadata

tag

Docket

Not captured

Civil

timeline

Stage

Court order issued

Active

event

Filed

Date unavailable

Not in the available feed

new_releases

Latest Filing

***DENIED BY ORDER OF Judge Alicemarie H. Stotler*** proposed order garnting ex parte application for relief from local

Order · May 10, 2026

newspaper

Coverage

0 articles

0 sources tracked

groups

Participants

1 Presiding Judge

1 linked entity

gavel

Judge

Alicemarie H. Stotler CR

What the record shows

The court metadata has not been resolved yet, so Juryvine is keeping the page conservative until a reliable court match lands.

The newest docket activity we have is a order dated May 10, 2026.

The visible party/entity graph currently includes Alicemarie H. Stotler CR.

No independent press coverage is attached yet; this page is currently docket-led rather than media-led.

chronic

The Story So Far

Updated 22 hours, 49 minutes ago

Judge Alicemarie H. Stotler denied a proposed order that sought ex parte relief from Local Rule 7-3(a). The denial came on July 10, 2003, reflecting the court's refusal to bypass the standard meet-and-confer requirement before filing certain motions.

The local rule mandates that parties must attempt to resolve disputes informally before seeking judicial intervention. The applicant had requested an exception to this rule, presumably to expedite relief or avoid disclosure to the opposing party, but the judge rejected that request.

The case remains active, but no further filings or motions have been publicly recorded since the denial. Without access to the docket or additional filings, the underlying dispute and parties involved remain unclear. The court's decision shows the judiciary's reluctance to grant ex parte relief absent compelling justification.

The ruling enforces procedural discipline, signaling that parties must comply with local rules even when seeking urgent relief. The case awaits further developments, but the denial limits immediate procedural shortcuts.

smart_toy Juryvine case narrative generated from the full docket timeline. How we verify our work.

update What Changed This Week

1 event
gavel
Order 23 hours ago
Judge Alicemarie issued an order.
receipt_long Source expand_more

***DENIED BY ORDER OF Judge Alicemarie H. Stotler*** proposed order garnting ex parte application for relief from local rule 7-3a 657-1 (pj) (Entered: 07/10/2003)

Juryvine summaries are generated from court records. Expand "Source" on any row to see the underlying filing.

Advertisement

Case Timeline

1 event
gavel
Order May 10, 2026

***DENIED BY ORDER OF Judge Alicemarie H. Stotler*** proposed order garnting ex parte application for relief from local rule 7-3a 657-1 (pj) (Entered: 07/10/2003)

Judge Alicemarie issued an order.

Advertisement
settings_backup_restore Data provenance expand_more

Sources tracked

0 outlets · 0 articles

Timeline events

1 record on file

Last updated

10 hours, 36 minutes ago

Juryvine aggregates docket entries from PACER/CourtListener, press coverage, and GDELT signals. Ingestion timestamps do not appear in the What Changed feed — that reflects real court activity only.