Save the Park and Build the School v. National Park Service
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Larry Alan Burns (author)
Analysis
The court considered an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order (TRO) filed by Save the Park and Build the School to halt construction work at George Berkich Park. The court denied the TRO, construing the motion as a request for a preliminary injunction, and set an expedited briefing schedule and hearing date.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Application for Temporary Restraining Order“The Court DENIES the application for a temporary restraining order” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard that a TRO is extraordinary relief requiring urgent need to preserve the status quo. The record recited in the order indicates that the underlying agency action occurred two months prior and work had resumed three months prior to the filing. Because the plaintiff had knowledge of the work for several months, the court reasonably concluded that the situation was not urgent enough to warrant an ex parte order without notice to the adverse party. |
Construction of Motion as Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Scheduling of Hearing“construes the remainder of the motion as a motion for preliminary injunction, orders expedited briefing, and sets the matter for a hearing as stated below.” | agree with court Converting a TRO application into a preliminary injunction motion when the TRO is denied is a standard procedural mechanism to ensure the merits are addressed. The expedited schedule (hearing 21 days after filing) is consistent with the urgency of the plaintiff's claim regarding ongoing construction. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the high bar for ex parte TROs, applies the facts of the case (delay in filing relative to the start of work) to that standard, and provides a clear path forward for the plaintiff to seek the same relief through the standard preliminary injunction process with notice to the defendants.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 SAVE THE PARK AND BUILD THE CASE NO. 20-cv-1080-LAB (AHG) SCHOOL, 10 ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR Plaintiff, 11 TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER vs. AND SETTING EXPEDITED 12 SCHEDULE FOR BRIEFING AND NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, et al. HEARING ON MOTION FOR 13 Defendants. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 14 15 16 Plaintiff Save the Park and Build the School filed an ex parte Application for 17 Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Re: Preliminary Injunction on 18 June 26, 2020. The Court DENIES the application for a temporary restraining order, 19 construes the remainder of the motion as a motion for preliminary injunction, orders 20 expedited briefing, and sets the matter for a hearing as stated below. 21 A temporary restraining order is extraordinary relief available only where such an 22 order “serv[es] [its] underlying purpose of preserving the status quo and preventing 23 irreparable harm before a preliminary injunction hearing may be held.” Granny Goose 24 Foods, 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974). Such orders are appropriate only where a party’s 25 interests are in urgent need of protection. See id. This Court hears motions for TROs 26 “[o]nly under extraordinary circumstances.” Burns Standing Order in Civil Cases. 27 Otherwise, adverse parties must have a reasonable opportunity to file an opposition. Id. 28 1 Circumstances here do not warrant issuance of a temporary restraining order. 2 || Based on a complaint filed over two weeks ago and arising out of agency action that 3 || occurred two months ago, Plaintiff asks the Court to put a halt to work that resumed 4 || over three months ago. Mot. at 20. Plaintiff concedes that Defendants removed the 5 || baseball backstop and walking track from George Berkich Park by March 24, 2020. 6 || Between that date and the date Plaintiff filed its motion, Defendants graded the Park, 7 || removed grass fields, excavated for construction of biofiltration basins, and began 8 || pouring cement foundation in the Park. /d. at 29. Because work has been proceeding for 9 || several months, the Court cannot find that matters are so urgent that the Court can 10 || enjoin further work without first permitting Defendants to be heard. 11 The Court construes the remainder of Plaintiff's motion as a motion for 12 || preliminary injunction and sets the matter for a hearing on July 20, 2020 at 11:30 a.m. 13 || in Courtroom 14A. Defendants’ response to the motion will be due on July 10, 2020, 14 || and any reply brief will be due on July 14, 2020. Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice of 15 || this order to each Defendant as soon as practicable and in no event later than July 1, 16 || 2020. Plaintiff must also file a declaration by that date stating the manner in which 17 || Plaintiff provided notice to each Defendant. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 || Dated: June 29, 2020 (tm / 44 (4, yy 20 HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS Chief United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28