Filed: Nov. 25, 2015
Latest Update: Nov. 25, 2015
Summary: ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER Re: Dkt. No. 1-12 LUCY H. KOH , District Judge . On November 24, 2015, Plaintiffs 1 filed the instant action against the City of Salinas. ECF No. 1 ("Compl."). Plaintiffs included, with Plaintiffs' complaint, a declination to magistrate judge jurisdiction. ECF No. 1-15. Accordingly, the Clerk reassigned this action to the undersigned judge on November 25, 2015. ECF No. 3. Before the Court is Plaintiffs'
Summary: ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER Re: Dkt. No. 1-12 LUCY H. KOH , District Judge . On November 24, 2015, Plaintiffs 1 filed the instant action against the City of Salinas. ECF No. 1 ("Compl."). Plaintiffs included, with Plaintiffs' complaint, a declination to magistrate judge jurisdiction. ECF No. 1-15. Accordingly, the Clerk reassigned this action to the undersigned judge on November 25, 2015. ECF No. 3. Before the Court is Plaintiffs' e..
More
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
Re: Dkt. No. 1-12
LUCY H. KOH, District Judge.
On November 24, 2015, Plaintiffs1 filed the instant action against the City of Salinas. ECF No. 1 ("Compl."). Plaintiffs included, with Plaintiffs' complaint, a declination to magistrate judge jurisdiction. ECF No. 1-15. Accordingly, the Clerk reassigned this action to the undersigned judge on November 25, 2015. ECF No. 3. Before the Court is Plaintiffs' ex parte application for a temporary restraining order, ECF No. 1-12 ("TRO"), which Plaintiffs also included as an attachment to Plaintiffs' complaint. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiffs' ex parte application is DENIED without prejudice.
Plaintiffs allege that, on October 13, 2015, the City of Salinas enacted Ordinance No. 2564 ("Ordinance"), which "prohibits the placing of `bulky items' on public property." Compl. ¶ 6. According to Plaintiffs, the Ordinance took effect on November 12, 2015.2 Id.
As a result of this Ordinance, Plaintiffs argue that "the City is now reviewing bids from contractors who are expected to carry out a dramatically escalated campaign to `sweep' homeless encampments, bulldozing possessions into dump trucks or otherwise confiscating unabandoned personal property." Id. ¶ 7. The named Plaintiffs are all homeless individuals residing in Salinas who allege that they will suffer irreparable harm from enforcement of the Ordinance. See id. ¶¶ 16-22; TRO at 17. Accordingly, Plaintiffs request a temporary restraining order to enjoin the City of Salinas and "its agents, servants, employees, attorneys, employees and all others acting in concert . . . from implementing Ordinance 2564." ECF No. 1-13 at 1-2.
Although the Court recognizes the gravity of the issues raised by Plaintiffs, the Court denies without prejudice Plaintiffs' ex parte application for a temporary restraining order because the application fails to comply with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1) and Civil Local Rule 5-1.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1) provides that:
The court may issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral notice to the adverse party or its attorney only if:
(A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and (B) 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). Plaintiffs have failed to submit an affidavit or explain in a verified complaint why immediate and irreparable injury will result to Plaintiffs before the adverse party can be heard in opposition as required by Rule 65(b)(1)(A). Moreover, Plaintiffs have not complied with the requirements of Rule 65(b)(1)(B).
In addition, Plaintiffs did not comply with Civil Local Rule 5-1, which provides that "[c]ourtesy copies of motions for temporary restraining orders or other emergency ex parte relief, oppositions to such motions, and replies to such motions must be delivered to the Clerk's Office no later than noon on the court day following the day that those documents were electronically filed."3 Civ. L. R. 5-1(e)(7)(C).
Accordingly, Plaintiffs' ex parte application for a temporary restraining order is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
