Marin County Homeless Union v. City of Novato

Background

The plaintiffs applied for a temporary restraining order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. The case had previously been dismissed after the parties entered a settlement agreement, but the court retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreement. The opinion states that the agreement and the court’s enforcement jurisdiction appeared to have expired on October 13, 2024. The plaintiffs had filed a motion to enforce the settlement, and that motion was still pending.

An October 29, 2024 order was already in effect to preserve the status quo concerning the encampment at the center of the case while the enforcement motion was resolved. The City of Novato had scheduled a special meeting to consider repealing Section 14-0.8 of its municipal code, which permitted nighttime camping under certain circumstances. The plaintiffs asked the court to prevent the City from enacting or enforcing a nighttime-camping prohibition until the court decided the jurisdiction issue and the enforcement motion.

At oral argument, the City confirmed that it would take no action affecting the encampment in violation of the October 29 order. The plaintiffs did not dispute that the order remained in effect or that the City had made that commitment, but they said they did not trust the City to comply with the order.

Legal standard

A temporary restraining order is a form of preliminary relief used to preserve the status quo and prevent the loss of rights before a final judgment. The court stated that the standard is the same as for a preliminary injunction. Under the usual standard, the party seeking relief must show likely success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without relief, a favorable balance of hardships, and that an injunction would serve the public interest. Under an alternative sliding-scale approach, relief may be available when there are serious questions about the merits, the balance of hardships sharply favors the plaintiff, and the other required factors are satisfied.

Ruling

Judge Robert M. Illman denied the plaintiffs’ application for a temporary restraining order. He found the application unnecessary because an existing order already preserved the status quo, the City had repeatedly committed to obey that order, and there was no indication that the City would take action violating it. The court also found that the plaintiffs had failed to show either a possibility of irreparable injury or a serious question going to the merits.

The order ruled only on the request for temporary relief. It did not decide the pending enforcement motion or the question whether the court still had jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement.