U.S. Public v. People in US
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
Plaintiffs filed an ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order seeking to enjoin all evictions and property rental agreement cancellations nationwide. The court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiffs failed to meet the high burden required for an ex parte TRO by providing no specific facts, legal basis, or justification for bypassing notice to the defendants.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order denied“Accordingly, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden in requesting this Court grant a TRO and the request is hereby DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the heightened standard for ex parte TROs. The plaintiffs failed to identify specific defendants, specific facts, or a legal basis for the claim that all evictions violate the Constitution. Furthermore, the request to enjoin the 'entirety of the U.S. population' is facially defective and fails to satisfy the requirement of a likelihood of success on the merits or the balance of equities. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally and substantively sound. It correctly identifies the applicable legal standard for ex parte TROs, cites the controlling Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit authorities, and applies those standards to the specific deficiencies in the plaintiff's motion (lack of facts, lack of legal basis, and failure to justify ex parte relief). The reasoning directly addresses the motion and supports the denial.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
inconsistent with cited authorityOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 U.S. PUBLIC, et al., Case No. 24-cv-0369-BAS-VET 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 13 v. EX PARTE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (ECF No. 3) 14 PEOPLE IN U.S., et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Sandara Jenkins and Steven Cross, on behalf of the 18 U.S. Public, Request for a Temporary Restraining Order. (ECF No. 3.) Because the 19 defendants in this case have not yet been served, this request is made ex parte. 20 For a court to grant a TRO, the moving party must show: (1) a likelihood of success 21 on the merits; (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm to the moving party in the absence of 22 preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in favor of the moving party; and (4) 23 that an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 24 7, 20 (2008). Generally, a TRO is “an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded 25 upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Id. at 22. For a TRO 26 granted ex parte, or without notice to the opposing party, the burden is even higher and 27 “courts have recognized very few circumstances justifying the issuance of an ex parte 28 TRO.” Reno Air Racing Ass’n. v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2006). I Here Plaintiffs request the TRO to cease “domestic enemy attacks/acts of war on 2 ||[the] US Constitution (our government) and people until jury trials by [the] public 3 ||(democracy).” (ECF No. 3 at 1.) Plaintiffs claim “eviction, property rental agreement 4 ||cancelation, [and] theft” violate the Constitution. (/d. at 2.) Plaintiffs do not offer any 5 ||facts as to why all evictions and property rental agreement cancelations violate the 6 || Constitution. Nor do Plaintiffs offer a legal basis for this conclusion. Plaintiff also does 7 ||not provide a particular eviction or property rental agreement whose cancelation offends 8 Constitution. Additionally, Plaintiffs do not provide a reason for why this Court should 9 || grant a TRO against Defendants without due notice to Defendants, the entirety of the U.S. 10 population, to appear and defend against this action and Plaintiffs’ allegations. 11 Accordingly, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden in requesting this Court grant a 12 || TRO and the request is hereby DENIED. 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 || DATED: March 13, 2024 Lin A (Ayphan 6 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ~_9.