ORDER TO TEMPORARILY ENJOIN TRANSFER OF PETITIONERS OUT OF THE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT

JOSEPHINE L. STATON, District Judge.

A temporary restraining order is "an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief." Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008). The purpose of a TRO is to preserve the status quo before a preliminary injunction hearing may be held. Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 70 of Alameda City, 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 governs the issuance of TROs and preliminary injunctions, and courts apply the same standard to both. Frontline Med. Assocs., Inc. v. Coventry Healthcare Workers Comp., Inc., 620 F.Supp.2d 1109, 1110 (C.D. Cal. 2009).

Under these circumstances, a party must show "`serious questions going to the merits' [,] a balance of hardships that tips sharply toward the plaintiff," a likelihood of irreparable harm, and that the injunction is in the public interest. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1132 (9th Cir. 2011). A "serious question" is one on which the movant "has a fair chance of success on the merits." Sierra On-Line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1421 (9th Cir. 1984). A court may issue a TRO without notice to the adverse party where specific facts in an affidavit "clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition." Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1).

Upon reviewing Petitioners' Emergency Motion and the declarations submitted with the Petitioners' Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, (Docs. 1, 1-1, 1-2, 4), the Court finds that Petitioners have established at least a serious question going to the merits of their claims; that the balance of hardships tips decisively in their favor; a likelihood of irreparable harm; and that an injunction is in the public interest.

Based on the facts described in the declarations submitted with the Petitioners' Petition and Complaint, Petitioners have a fair chance of success on the merits of their Fifth Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection claims and their claims under the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(27), 1153(b)(4), 1181 and 8 C.F.R. § 292.5(b)). There is a likelihood of immediate and irreparable harm here where the Emergency Motion and declarations represent that the four of the Petitioners, a mother and three children, are to be separated from the husband/father and placed on a flight out of this Court's jurisdiction within an hour. The mother cannot read or speak English and her children are aged 7 years-, 6 years-, and 8 months-old. The balance of equities tip in their favor and the injunction is in the public interest. For these same reasons, the Court concludes that it is necessary to issue this Order without notice and set the hearing for the earliest possible time.

The Court therefore enjoins Respondents from (1) preventing access between Petitioners and Petitioners' Attorneys, and (2) transferring Petitioners to any location outside of the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, pending a hearing on Petitioners' Emergency Motion for Temporary Injunctive Relief, which the Court sets for this Monday, March 6 at 1:30 p.m.