Scwarz v. Town of Fairfax
- Richard Seeborg
- 3:25-cv-06395
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Scwarz v. Town of Fairfax, Judge Seeborg revised a temporary restraining order to cover specified camp residents while the preliminary-injunction motion proceeds.
The revised temporary restraining order affects people who were present at the relevant camp as of July 31, 2025, unless they are otherwise subject to a prior judicial determination, and it restricts the defendants from implementing the notice to vacate as to those people.
What happened
In Cecil Brheath Scwarz, et al. v. Town of Fairfax, et al., the court revised an earlier order that barred the defendants from carrying out a notice to vacate at an encampment.
The revised order applies only to people who were present at the camp on July 31, 2025, and who are not already subject to a prior judicial determination. It lasts 14 days from August 6, 2025, or until the court decides the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, whichever happens first.
Judge Richard Seeborg also referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Robert Illman for mediation and settlement discussions and set a schedule for briefing and a hearing on the preliminary-injunction motion. The order did not decide that motion.
The detailed version
- Scwarz v. Town of Fairfax · No. 3:25-cv-06395
- Richard Seeborg
- Aug. 6, 2025
Background
The court had issued an order dated July 31, 2025, restraining the defendants from implementing a notice to vacate posted at the relevant encampment. After a hearing on August 6, 2025, the court issued this revised temporary restraining order.
Revised Temporary Restraining Order
The revised order applies only to people who were present at the camp as of July 31, 2025, and who are not otherwise subject to a prior judicial determination. The court stated that the order would remain in effect for 14 days from August 6, 2025, or until the court decides the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, whichever occurs sooner.
Other Proceedings and Schedule
The court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Robert Illman for mediation and settlement discussions and encouraged the parties to try to resolve the dispute promptly. The plaintiffs’ opening brief on the preliminary-injunction motion was due August 11, 2025. The opinion states that the defendants’ response was due Friday, but the supplied text cuts off before giving the date. The hearing was scheduled for August 19, 2025, at 3:00 p.m. by videoconference.
Disposition
Judge Richard Seeborg revised the temporary restraining order as described above. This order did not decide the preliminary-injunction motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.