Scwarz v. Town of Fairfax

Background

The individual plaintiffs live in an encampment in the Town of Fairfax, California. Fairfax enacted an ordinance banning encampments like the one where the plaintiffs reside. On July 25, 2025, Fairfax responded to plaintiff Scwarz’s request for an accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act if the ordinance were enforced. Fairfax stated, among other things, that the request was premature because no abatement notice had been posted and no abatement had occurred.

At 9:00 a.m. on July 29, 2025, Fairfax posted a 72-hour “Notice to Vacate” requiring the plaintiffs to leave the encampment permanently. The plaintiffs then filed this action and moved for a temporary restraining order, an emergency order intended to preserve the existing situation while the court considers further relief.

Ruling

After reviewing the complaint, the motion, and supporting exhibits, the court found that the plaintiffs had met the standard for temporary relief preserving the status quo until the defendants could appear and be heard. The court therefore granted the motion for a temporary restraining order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b). Because of the abrupt timeline and the threatened abatement action, the court issued the order without formal notice to the defendants.

The order restrains the named defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and people acting together with them from implementing the “Notice to Vacate” or the underlying ordinance with respect to the encampment where the plaintiffs reside. They are also barred from closing that encampment or otherwise removing people from it as part of the planned closure.

The order does not prohibit particularized removals or other actions unrelated to closing the encampment, including lawfully removing possessions while suppressing a fire or carrying out a lawful arrest for reasons unrelated to the planned closure.

Next Steps

Judge Richard Seeborg set an August 6, 2025 videoconference hearing on whether the temporary restraining order should remain in place while the court considers the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction. Defendants may file a response of no more than 15 pages by 5:00 p.m. on August 4, 2025, limited to whether the temporary restraining order should continue. The defendants may instead propose a schedule for briefing and hearing the preliminary-injunction motion; if they do, the court stated that it would set that matter for hearing, continue the temporary restraining order through that date, and cancel the August 6 hearing.