Zepeda Rivas v. Jennings
- Laurel Beeler
- 3:20-cv-02731
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Zepeda Rivas v. Jennings, Judge Chhabria asked the parties whether any interim relief should be a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the case, because the court directed both sides to address the form of any possible interim relief.
What happened
In Zepeda Rivas v. Jennings, the court addressed how the parties should describe possible temporary relief in their upcoming filings.
The court told the parties to advise whether, if the court decided temporary relief was warranted, it should issue a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order.
The order did not decide whether relief was warranted or issue either type of order. Judge Chhabria directed the parties to address that question in filings due Saturday and Monday.
The detailed version
- Zepeda Rivas v. Jennings · No. 3:20-cv-02731
- Laurel Beeler
- Apr. 24, 2020
Order
The parties were directed to address in filings due Saturday and Monday whether the court should issue a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order if it concluded that interim relief was warranted.
What the Court Decided
The order did not decide whether interim relief was warranted. It also did not grant or deny a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order. The court only directed the parties to advise which form of relief would be appropriate if the court later found that temporary relief should issue. The order cites Washington v. Trump and California v. Trump.
Judge
The order was signed by Vince Chhabria, United States District Judge.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.