UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 11, 2012
CHRIS LUSBY TAYLOR, NANCY A. PEPPLE- GONSALVES, GARY KESSELMAN, SUSAN SWINTON, DAWN E. STRUCK, AND
ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND OTHER PERSONS AND FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SIMILARLY SITUATED, HEARING:
JOHN CHIANG, IN HIS CAPACITY AS CONTROLLER OF THE STATE OF (THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ) CALIFORNIA, AND STEVE WESTLY,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable John Mendez United States District Court Judge
ORDER DENYING WILLIAM J. PALMER PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
Date: May 30, 2012 Time: 10:00 a.m. Courtroom: 6
Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and for Preliminary Injunction came on for hearing on May 30, 2012, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 6 of the United States District Court, Eastern District, the Honorable John A. Mendez, presiding. Plaintiffs Chris Lusby Taylor, et al. appeared by and through their counsel, Robert A. Buccola, C. Brooks Cutter, Lori M. Porter, and William W. Palmer. Defendants John Chiang, et al. appeared by and through their counsel, Robin B. Johansen and Margaret R. Prinzing of Remcho, Johansen & Purcell, LLP.
The hearing arose from plaintiffs' motion for Temporary Restraining Order and for Preliminary Injunction, which plaintiffs filed on May 15, 2012 and defendants opposed. Prior to filing that motion, plaintiffs had filed a Motion for Leave to Amend First Amended Complaint, which defendants opposed and which was scheduled to be heard on June 13, 2012. In addition, defendants had filed a Motion for Protective Order and Request for Rule 16 Conference and Scheduling Order and plaintiffs had filed a Motion to Compel Discovery, both of which the Court had previously ordered the parties to re-notice for hearing before the Honorable Gregory G. Hollows. At the May 30, 2021 hearing, the Court heard plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and for Preliminary Injunction, and in addition held a status conference.
The Court, having reviewed the record, having read and considered the supporting and opposing points and authorities, and having heard and considered the arguments of counsel, and good cause appearing, finds and orders as follows:
1. Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and for Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED.
2. The Court finds that the requirements for a temporary restraining order have not been met. Specifically, plaintiffs have not demonstrated the likelihood that they will suffer irreparable injury if preliminary relief is not granted. Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and for Preliminary Injunction is therefore DENIED.
3. The Court declines to set a hearing on plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.
4. Plaintiffs requested to withdraw their Motion for Leave to Amend First Amended Complaint in order to draft a new complaint with new plaintiffs and allegations. Plaintiffs will file a new Motion for Leave to Amend First Amended Complaint. Consequently, the hearing and motion scheduled for June 13, 2012 are hereby VACATED.
5. It is hereby ordered that discovery in this matter is STAYED until further notice and that the discovery motions that had been ordered to be re-noticed before the Honorable Gregory G. Hollows are hereby VACATED.
6. The parties shall comply with the following page limits in subsequent filings with this Court: Opening and opposition briefs shall be no more than 25 pages, and reply briefs shall be no more than 10 pages.
John A. Mendez
Approved as to Form:
Robert A. Buccola Attorney for Plaintiffs
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 137
Pursuant to Local Rule 137(a), I certify that this office served the foregoing Proposed Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion For Temporary Restraining Order And For Preliminary Injunction upon all other parties by email on June 1, 2012. It has been seven days since such service was completed.
Dated: June 8, 2012
s/ Margaret R. Prinzing
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, declare under penalty of perjury that:
I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18, and not a party to the within cause or action. My business address is 201 Dolores Avenue, San Leandro, CA 94577.
On June 1, 2012, I served a true copy of the following document(s):
[Proposed] Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and for
on the following party(ies) in said action:
William W. Palmer Attorneys for Plaintiffs The Law Offices of William W. Palmer 575 University Avenue, Suite 100 Sacramento, CA 95825 Phone: (916) 564-4458 Fax: (916) 564-5758 Email: WPalmer@palmercorp.com
Robert A. Buccola Attorneys for Plaintiffs Steven M. Campora Lori M. Porter Dreyer Babich Buccola Wood Campora, LLP 20 Bicentennial Circle Sacramento, CA 95826 Phone: (916) 379-3500 Fax: (916) 379-3599 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
C. Brooks Cutter Attorneys for Plaintiffs Kershaw Cutter & Ratinoff 401 Watt Avenue Sacramento, CA 95864 Phone: (916) 448-9800 Fax: (916) 669-4499 Email: email@example.com
BY UNITED STATES MAIL: By enclosing the document(s) in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the person(s) at the address above and depositing the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Service, with the postage fully prepaid.
placing the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with the businesses' practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service, located in San Leandro, California, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid.
BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: By enclosing the document(s) in an envelope or package provided by an overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the persons at the addresses listed. I placed the envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery at an office or a regularly utilized drop box of the overnight delivery carrier.
BY MESSENGER SERVICE: By placing the document(s) in an envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses listed and providing them to a professional messenger service for service.
BY FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION: By faxing the document(s) to the persons at the fax numbers listed based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by fax transmission. No error was reported by the fax machine used. A copy of the fax transmission is maintained in our files.
BY EMAIL TRANSMISSION: By emailing the document(s) to the persons at the email addresses listed based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept service by email. No electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful was received within a reasonable time after the transmission.
I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on
June 1, 2012, in San Leandro, California.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.