George v. Grossmont Cuyamaca Community College District Board Of Governors
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court converted plaintiffs' ex parte application for a temporary restraining order into a motion for a preliminary injunction and set a hearing date for that motion and defendants' pending motion to dismiss. The court noted that the plaintiffs' delay in seeking relief undermined the claim of exigent circumstances necessary for a TRO.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Convert Plaintiffs' Application for a Temporary Restraining Order to a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction“Given the notice and opportunity to oppose provided to Defendants, the Court CONVERTS the TRO Application to a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the procedural rule that when a TRO is issued ex parte and the opposing party is given notice and an opportunity to be heard, the proceeding is converted to a preliminary injunction hearing. The court also correctly noted that the significant delay (seven months after the mandate, three months after filing) weighed against the 'exigent circumstances' required for a TRO, citing Whirlpool Corp. v. Marshall. |
Set hearing on pending motions for preliminary injunction and motion to dismiss“The Court further ORDERS the parties to appear in person for oral argument on Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 40) and Defendants’ pending Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 76) on Wednesday, November 2, 2022, at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 4B.” | agree with court This is a standard case management order to schedule oral argument on pending dispositive and injunctive motions. It follows local rules (Civ. L.R. 7.1(d)(1)). |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the procedural posture (ex parte TRO with subsequent notice/opposition) and applies the standard conversion to a preliminary injunction. The footnote correctly applies Supreme Court precedent (Whirlpool) regarding the 'exigent circumstances' requirement for TROs and the impact of delay. The scheduling of the hearing is appropriate.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JUDY GEORGE, et al., Case No. 22-cv-0424-BAS-BLM 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER: 13 v. 1) CONVERTING APPLICATION 14 GROSSMONT CUYAMACA FOR A TEMPORARY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT 15 RESTRAINING ORDER TO BOARD OF GOVERNORS, et al., MOTION FOR A 16 Defendants. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 17 [ECF No. 40];
18 2) SETTING HEARING ON 19 PENDING MOTIONS FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 20 AND MOTION TO DISMISS 21 [ECF Nos. 40, 76]
24 Plaintiffs bring this action to invalidate vaccine mandates adopted in fall of 2021 by 25 three California Community College Districts (“CCDs”)—San Diego Community College 26 District (“SDCCD”), South Orange County Community College District (“SOCCCD”), 27 and Grossmont Cuyamaca Community College District (“GCCCD”). 28 1 Specifically, Plaintiffs launch a myriad of constitutional challenges against the CCDs’ 2 requirements that their employees and students be fully vaccinated and boosted against 3 COVID-19 or establish entitlement to one of two eligible exemptions—including a 4 religious exemption—and the frameworks employed to decide accommodations for 5 exemptions (collectively, “CCD Vaccine Requirements”). 6 Three months after filing their Complaint in March 2022, Plaintiffs moved ex parte 7 for a temporary restraining order on June 20, 2022, seeking to enjoin the CCDs from 8 enforcing their Vaccine Requirements. (TRO App., ECF No. 40.) In accordance with this 9 Court’s June 23, 2022 Order (ECF No. 42), Defendants opposed on July 11, 2022 (ECF 10 No. 68) and Plaintiffs replied on July 20, 2022 (ECF No. 71). 11 Given the notice and opportunity to oppose provided to Defendants, the Court 12 CONVERTS the TRO Application to a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.1 Voth v. 13 Mills, No. CV 09-424-HA, 2010 WL 1640401, at *1 (D. Or. Apr. 19, 2010). 14 The Court further ORDERS the parties to appear in person for oral argument on 15 Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 40) and Defendants’ pending 16 Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 76) on Wednesday, November 2, 2022, at 10:30 AM in 17 Courtroom 4B. See Civ. L.R. 7.1(d)(1). 18 At the hearing, the parties should be prepared to discuss, inter alia, discrete issues 19 bearing upon whether Plaintiffs are likely to suffer irreparable harm absent preliminary 20 relief. This includes any changes since July 11, 2022 to: (1) the CCD’s respective Vaccine 21 Requirements; (2) Plaintiffs’ exempt status; and (3) Plaintiffs’ accommodations, namely, 22 the requirements Plaintiffs Dora Meza (SDCCD) and Patricia Sparks (GCCD) wear face 23 1 In converting Plaintiffs’ TRO Application to a Motion for a preliminary injunction, the Court 24 notes that Plaintiffs held their request for pre-trial relief in abeyance for approximately seven months after 25 the last CCD issued a Vaccine Requirement and three months after filing their Complaint. This unexplained delay belies the notion there exist exigent circumstances warranting a TRO. Whirlpool Corp. 26 v. Marshall, 445 U.S. 1, 20 n.33 (1980) (instructing TROs are reserved for “emergency situations”) “Delays of one month or more are common grounds for denying motions for temporary restraining orders. 27 UnifySCC v. Cody, No. 22-cv-01019-BLF, 2022 WL 686310, at *2 (Mar. 8, 2022) (denying plaintiffs’ application for a TRO against defendant county’s workplace COVID-19 vaccine mandate because 28 1 ||coverings and that Plaintiffs Jess Perez and Paul Bonkowski (both SOCCCD) submit to 2 ||antigen testing twice weekly on account of their status as exempt and unvaccinated 3 |}employees. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. / , 5 || DATED: October 27, 2022 Ypilag (Lyohaa 6 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28