South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- On appeal
- South Bay United Pentecostal C v. Gavin Newsom (2020-05-22); South Bay United Pentecostal v. Gavin Newsom (2020-12-08) — vacated; South Bay United Pentecostal v. Gavin Newsom (2020-12-23); South Bay United Pentecostal v. Gavin Newsom (2020-12-24); South Bay United Pentecostal v. Gavin Newsom (2021-01-22) — affirmed; South Bay United Pentecostal v. Gavin Newsom (2021-01-22) — affirmed; South Bay United Pentecostal v. Usdc-Casd (2021-04-02) — other — the Ninth Circuit's later ruling on this docket
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
Plaintiffs moved for an ex parte injunction pending appeal after the district court denied their motion for a temporary restraining order. The court denied the motion for the same reasons it had previously stated on the record during the TRO hearing.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Plaintiffs' ex parte motion for an injunction pending appeal“Having reviewed Plaintiffs’ arguments, the Court DENIES the instant Motion for the same reasons stated on the record at the telephonic hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for temporary restraining order.” | unsure The order is a procedural disposition that incorporates by reference the reasoning from a prior hearing. Because the order does not recite the specific facts or legal analysis from the transcript (ECF No. 38), it is impossible to verify if the denial was legally correct based solely on the text of this order. However, the procedural mechanism of denying a pending appeal injunction based on the same grounds as the underlying TRO denial is standard practice. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order correctly identifies the procedural rules governing injunctions pending appeal and the applicable standard of review. However, it provides no independent analysis, relying entirely on the transcript of a prior hearing. While legally permissible, this makes the order self-contained only in a limited sense, as the reasoning is external to the document.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
inconsistent with cited authorityOpinion
5 6
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9
10 SOUTH BAY UNITED Case No. 20-cv-865-BAS-AHG PENTECOSTAL CHURCH, et al., 11 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ Plaintiffs, EX PARTE MOTION FOR AN 12 INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL v. 13 [ECF No. 36] GAVIN NEWSOM, in his official 14 capacity as the Governor of California, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiffs South Bay United Pentecostal Church and Bishop Arthur Hodges III 18 filed a motion for temporary restraining order. (ECF No. 12.) On May 15, 2020, the 19 Court held a telephonic hearing on the motion and denied the motion. (ECF No. 32, 20 38 (transcript of hearing).) That same day, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. 21 Plaintiffs also filed an ex parte motion seeking an injunction pending the appeal. 22 (ECF No. 36.) 23 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(a)(1) provides that “[a] party must 24 ordinarily move first in the district court for . . . (C) an order . . . granting an injunction 25 while an appeal is pending.” Fed. R. App. Proc. 8(a)(1). Federal Rule of Civil 26 Procedure 62(d) provides that “[w]hile an appeal is pending from an interlocutory 27 order or final judgment that grants, dissolves, or denies an injunction, the court may | ||secure the opposing party’s rights.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(d). The standard for granting 2 ||an injunction pending appeal is generally the same as the standard for granting a 3 || preliminary injunction. Humane Soc’y of U.S. v. Gutierrez, 523 F.3d 990, 991 (9th 4 || Cir. 2008). 5 Having reviewed Plaintiffs’ arguments, the Court DENIES the instant Motion 6 ||for the same reasons stated on the record at the telephonic hearing on Plaintiffs’ 7 ||motion for temporary restraining order. (See ECF No. 38.) 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 || DATED: May 18, 2020 / . 10 (Yin 4 (Bashan. 6 11 Usited Viates District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28