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 to stop an eviction, alleging conspiracy, contract fraud, and blackmail. The court denied the motion because the plaintiffs failed to provide factual or legal support for their claims and did not justify the lack of 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 four-factor test for injunctive relief and the heightened standard for ex parte relief. The order notes that the plaintiffs failed to provide specific facts supporting their allegations of conspiracy or fraud, failed to provide a legal basis for the injunction, and failed to explain why ex parte relief was necessary. Denying the motion is consistent with the law and the record presented. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the legal standards for both standard and ex parte TROs. It accurately observes that the plaintiffs' complaint lacks the necessary factual specificity and legal argumentation to meet the burden of proof. The reasoning is concise but sufficient to support the denial.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionOpinion
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. 7) 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. 7.) Because the 19 defendants in this case have not yet been served, this request is made ex parte. Plaintiffs 20 move to stop the eviction of a property located at 1050 Essex Street, San Diego, California 21 claiming “conspiracy, contract fraud under treason, blackmail, coercion, etc.” (Id.) 22 For a court to grant a TRO, the moving party must show: (1) a likelihood of success 23 on the merits; (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm to the moving party in the absence of 24 preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in favor of the moving party; and (4) 25 that an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 26 7, 20 (2008). Generally, a TRO is “an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded 27 upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Id. at 22. For a TRO 28 granted ex parte, or without notice to the opposing party, the burden is even higher and 1 ||“courts have recognized very few circumstances justifying the issuance of an ex parte 2 || TRO.” Reno Air Racing Ass’n. v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2006). 3 Here Plaintiffs request the TRO to prevent an eviction from occurring citing 4 ||“conspiracy, contract fraud under treason, blackmail, coercion, etc.” (ECF No. 7.) 5 || Plaintiffs do not offer any facts as to why the eviction amounts to a conspiracy, how 6 contract fraud occurred, or how blackmail or coercion may be claimed. Nor do Plaintiffs 7 || offer a legal basis for stopping the eviction. Additionally, Plaintiffs do not provide a reason 8 ||for why this Court should grant a TRO against Defendants without due notice to 9 || Defendants, the entirety of the U.S. population, to appear and defend against this action 10 Plaintiffs’ allegations. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden in 11 ||requesting this Court grant a TRO and the request is hereby DENIED. 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 /) 15 DATED: April 8, 2024 (Yin A (Lyphan 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ~_9.