Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled July 11, 2024

Fleming v. Marin County Sheriffs Department

Judge
Richard Seeborg
Docket
3:24-cv-03859
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
3
Preliminary InjunctionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Fleming v. Marin County Sheriffs Department, Judge Seeborg extended the temporary restraining order against towing Fleming’s RV for 14 days.

Who this affects

Joseph Fleming, the defendants, and the recreational vehicle at issue in the towing dispute.

What happened

In Fleming v. Marin County Sheriffs Department, Joseph Fleming asked the court to stop the defendants from towing the recreational vehicle in which he resides from Binford Road in Marin County.

The court had previously issued a temporary restraining order, which was scheduled to expire on July 11, 2024. The parties discussed the defendants’ offer to withdraw the towing notice if Fleming agreed to seek alternative housing, but they had not reached an agreement.

Judge Richard Seeborg extended the temporary restraining order for another 14 days, until July 25, 2024. He kept the July 18 hearing on Fleming’s request for a preliminary injunction and directed the parties to address both that request and whether settlement discussions could help resolve the dispute.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Fleming v. Marin County Sheriffs Department · No. 3:24-cv-03859
Judge
Richard Seeborg
Date
July 11, 2024

Background

Joseph Fleming filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction on June 27, 2024. He sought to stop the defendants from towing the recreational vehicle in which he resides from Binford Road in Marin County. The court had granted the TRO, and it was scheduled to expire on July 11, 2024.

In response, the defendants offered to withdraw the towing notice if Fleming agreed to seek alternative housing. The parties were ordered to meet and confer about that offer and report whether they had reached an agreement. The defendants reported that they had sent a proposal with several conditions and had spoken with Fleming by telephone. Fleming raised concerns about being singled out, said he was already working with the Downtown Streets Team to seek alternative housing, and explained that intermittent access to electricity, a computer, or an office made email communication difficult. The defendants stated that they could not reach him by the July 10 deadline to learn whether he accepted the offer.

Court’s Action

Because the parties had managed to have only one meeting about the defendants’ offer, the court extended the TRO for 14 additional days, until July 25, 2024. The court did not decide whether a preliminary injunction should issue.

The court kept the July 18, 2024 hearing on Fleming’s preliminary-injunction motion on the calendar. It directed the parties to address whether a preliminary injunction was warranted and whether settlement discussions would be fruitful. Each party could submit a brief of no more than five pages by noon on July 17, 2024. The court also encouraged the parties to continue discussing the defendants’ offer before the hearing.

Meaning of the Ruling

The order temporarily continued the existing protection against towing the RV while the court prepared to consider the preliminary-injunction request. It was a procedural order extending temporary relief; it did not resolve the underlying dispute or determine whether Fleming would ultimately receive a preliminary injunction.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.