Altman v. County of Santa Clara
- Jon Tigar
- 4:20-cv-02180
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Altman v. County of Santa Clara, Judge Tigar denied a temporary restraining order and scheduled a preliminary-injunction hearing.
The plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order was denied, while the defendants received an opportunity to respond before the preliminary-injunction hearing.
What happened
In Altman v. County of Santa Clara, the plaintiffs asked for a temporary restraining order or, alternatively, a preliminary injunction. The court considered the request for immediate relief without waiting for the defendants’ response.
The court said the plaintiffs had not shown the immediate and irreparable harm required for that kind of order without notice. It also noted that they waited ten days after filing their complaint before seeking the relief, supporting the decision to give the defendants a chance to respond.
Judge Tigar denied the temporary restraining order but expressed no view on whether a preliminary injunction should issue. The defendants’ opposition was due April 24, 2020, the plaintiffs’ reply was due May 1, 2020, and a hearing was set for May 13, 2020.
The detailed version
- Altman v. County of Santa Clara · No. 4:20-cv-02180
- Jon Tigar
- Apr. 10, 2020
Background
Janice Altman and the other plaintiffs filed an application for a temporary restraining order, or alternatively a motion for a preliminary injunction. A temporary restraining order is short-term emergency relief intended to preserve the existing situation and prevent irreparable harm until a hearing can occur. The defendants are the County of Santa Clara and the other defendants identified in the case caption.
Reasoning
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1), a court may issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral notice to the opposing party only when specific facts show that immediate and irreparable injury will occur before the opposing party can be heard, and the moving attorney certifies efforts to provide notice and explains why notice should not be required.
The court found that the plaintiffs made no effort in their application to satisfy Rule 65(b)(1). In particular, they did not show immediate and irreparable injury that outweighed the need to allow the defendants a reasonable opportunity to respond. The court also noted that the plaintiffs waited ten days between filing their original complaint and seeking the requested relief.
Ruling
The court denied the request for a temporary restraining order. It expressly stated that it was not deciding whether a preliminary injunction would be appropriate. The defendants’ opposition was due by April 24, 2020, at 5:00 p.m.; the plaintiffs’ reply was due by May 1, 2020, at 5:00 p.m.; and the court set a preliminary-injunction hearing for May 13, 2020, at 2:00 p.m.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.