Filed: May 28, 2019
Latest Update: May 28, 2019
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDERS WITH LEAVE TO RENEW SALVADOR MENDOZA, JR. , District Judge . Before the Court is Plaintiff Jose Alfredo Rivera-Ruiz's Motion for Temporary Restraining Orders, ECF No. 5. Rivera-Ruiz seeks three temporary restraining orders enjoining Defendants Douglas County, Washington; Prosecuting Attorney Gordon Edgar; and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the United States of America. Id. Having reviewed the pleadings and th
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDERS WITH LEAVE TO RENEW SALVADOR MENDOZA, JR. , District Judge . Before the Court is Plaintiff Jose Alfredo Rivera-Ruiz's Motion for Temporary Restraining Orders, ECF No. 5. Rivera-Ruiz seeks three temporary restraining orders enjoining Defendants Douglas County, Washington; Prosecuting Attorney Gordon Edgar; and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the United States of America. Id. Having reviewed the pleadings and the..
More
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDERS WITH LEAVE TO RENEW
SALVADOR MENDOZA, JR., District Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiff Jose Alfredo Rivera-Ruiz's Motion for Temporary Restraining Orders, ECF No. 5. Rivera-Ruiz seeks three temporary restraining orders enjoining Defendants Douglas County, Washington; Prosecuting Attorney Gordon Edgar; and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the United States of America. Id.
Having reviewed the pleadings and the file in this matter, the Court is fully informed and denies the motion, with leave to renew it, as Rivera-Ruiz's attorneys have failed to provide the required certification regarding notice to Defendants. Because oral argument is unnecessary to make this determination, the Court decides the motion without oral argument. See LCivR 7(i)(3)(B)(iii).
While the Court may issue a TRO without notice to an adverse party, it may do so "only if . . . the movant's attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required." Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(B).
Here, Rivera-Ruiz's attorneys failed to provide such a certification. See id. Moreover, Defendants could not have received notice by other means. Rivera-Ruiz's attorneys filed the complaint and twelve exhibits on May 16, 2019. ECF No. 1. The Clerk's Office issued a summons on May 17, 2019. ECF No. 3. To date, Rivera-Ruiz's attorneys have not filed proof that Defendants either received or waived service of the complaint and summons, nor have counsel for Defendants appeared. Rivera-Ruiz's attorneys filed the present motion on May 22, 2019. ECF No. 5. The motion does not contain a certificate indicating that it was served on Defendants. See id.
Because Defendants have not been provided with notice of the motion and Rivera-Ruiz's attorneys failed to certify any efforts made to give notice, the Court may not issue any temporary restraining orders at this time.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Orders, ECF No. 5, is DENIED with leave to renew.
2. The motion hearing scheduled for May 30, 2019 at 10:15 AM in Richland, Washington is STRICKEN.
IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk's Office is directed to enter this Order and provide copies to all counsel.
