UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 8, 2011
FEDERAL CORRECTION INSTITUTION DUBLIN, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Morrison C. England, Jr. United States District Judge
Plaintiff Peggy Boynton ("Plaintiff") filed a Temporary Restraining Order, and a virtually identical document entitled "Damage to Property" that purportedly serves as the Complaint. Plaintiff is requesting the Court prevent her former employer Defendant Federal Correction Institution Dublin from moving her mobile home until it is properly tested for mold (ECF No. 1).
The purpose of a temporary restraining order is to preserve the status quo, pending the complete briefing and thorough consideration contemplated by full proceedings pursuant to a preliminary injunction.
See Dunn v. Cate, 2010 WL 1558562 at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2010) ("A 2 temporary restraining order is designed to preserve the status quo 3 until there is an opportunity to hold a hearing on the application 4 for a preliminary injunction."). Issuance of a temporary 5 restraining order, as a form of preliminary injunctive relief, is 6 an extraordinary remedy where plaintiffs have the burden of proving 7 the propriety of such a remedy by clear and convincing evidence.
See Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997); Granny GooseFoods, Inc. v. Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423, 442 (1974). In general, the evidentiary standard to obtain a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction is the same. Stuhlbarg Int'l Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush & Co., Inc., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001).
A party requesting preliminary injunctive relief must show that "'he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.'" Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008)).
Alternatively, under the so-called sliding scale approach, as long as the plaintiffs demonstrate the requisite likelihood of irreparable harm and show that an injunction is in the public interest, a preliminary injunction can still issue so long as serious questions going to the merits are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in plaintiffs' favor.
Alliance for Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 622 F.3d 1045, 1049-53 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding that sliding scale test for issuance of preliminary injunctive relief remains viable even after Winter).
Ultimately, the propriety of a temporary restraining order in 5 particular, hinges on a significant threat of irreparable injury.
Simula, Inc. v. Autoliv, Inc., 175 F.3d 716, 725 (9th Cir. 1999).
A plaintiff's injury must be imminent in nature. Caribbean Marine Serv. Co. v. Baldridge, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988).
As stated above, Plaintiff requests relief to prevent her mobile home
from being moved by her former employer. However, that is the entire
extent of information available to the Court; Plaintiff has filed no
other records, or provided the Court with any additional information
regarding the circumstances surrounding her request.*fn1
Due to the dearth of substantive information, the Court
cannot evaluate the merits of Plaintiff's plea for a temporary
restraining order under the appropriate standards. See supra.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's request for relief is DENIED without
IT IS SO ORDERED.