United States District Court, S.D. California
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE MOTION FOR A
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
Honorable Dana M. Sabraw United States District Judge
matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ ex
parte motion for a temporary restraining order
(“TRO”) to prevent Defendants from proceeding
with a foreclosure sale of Plaintiffs’ property.
Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1) allows for issuance of a
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
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1). Plaintiffs here have not served a
copy of their motion on Defendants and have not claimed that
they made any efforts to do so.
are minors and corporations challenging the validity of
California’s Senate Bill (“SB”) 277, which
closes previously available personal belief exemptions
(“PBEs”) to the general requirements that
students seeking to enroll in California schools must be
vaccinated. According to Plaintiffs, SB 277 violates their
constitutional guarantee of the free exercise of religion
under the First Amendment, in addition to other fundamental
rights, without a compelling government interest.
Additionally, they claim that even if the government shows a
compelling interest, SB 277 is not narrowly tailored or the
least restrictive means of achieving that interest.
seek injunctive and declaratory relief from SB 277 to
prohibit the enforcement of SB 277.
purpose of a temporary restraining order is to preserve the
status quo before a preliminary injunction hearing may be
held; its provisional remedial nature is designed merely to
prevent irreparable loss of rights prior to judgment. See
Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters &
Auto Truck Drivers, 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974) (noting a
temporary restraining order is restricted to its
“underlying purpose of preserving the status quo and
preventing irreparable harm just so long as is necessary to
hold a hearing, and no longer”). Injunctive relief is
“an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon
a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such
relief.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council,
Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008). The standard for issuing a
temporary restraining order is identical to the standard for
issuing a preliminary injunction. Lockheed Missile &
Space Co., Inc. v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 887 F.Supp.
1320, 1323 (N.D. Cal. 1995). A party seeking injunctive
relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 must show
“‘that he is likely to succeed on the merits,
that he is likely ...