Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Terry Williams-Ilunga v. andrea Gonzalez; et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


November 30, 2012

TERRY WILLIAMS-ILUNGA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ANDREA GONZALEZ; ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dean D. Pregerson United States District Judge

O

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE APPLICATION RE: RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DISSOLVING TRO [Dkt. No. 28]

Presently before the court is Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application RE: Reconsideration of Order Dissolving TRO / Denying Issuance of Preliminary Injunction. On November 7, 2012, this court denied Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff here applies for reconsideration of that Order for two reasons. First, she states that she did not receive notice of Defendants' opposition to her Motion for Preliminary Injunction until the morning of the hearing. Second, she asserts that she did not have the opportunity to consider Defendants' documents in support of their opposition.

Ex parte relief is generally disfavored when relief may be had through a regularly noticed motion. It will be granted only upon an adequate showing of good cause or irreparable injury to the party seeking relief. Mission Power Eng'g Co. v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 883 F.Supp. 488, 492 (C.D. Cal. 1995). At the hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Plaintiff had ample opportunity to present her arguments in support of the Preliminary Injunction, and the court gave them due consideration but declined to issue an injunction. The court does not find that Plaintiff was prejudiced by her limited opportunity to consider Defendants' Opposition to the Preliminary Injunction; the court agrees with Defendants that their Opposition should not be construed as a motion to dissolve a temporary restraining order and that therefore the notice requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 is inapplicable.

Because Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction had a full and fair hearing, the court finds that Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application does not meet the high standard for ex parte relief. If Plaintiff wishes the court to reconsider the denial of the Preliminary Injunction, she should file a regularly noticed motion for reconsideration, bearing in mind the requirements for such motions established by Local Rule 7-18.

For these reasons, the Ex Parte Application is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20121130

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.