Thompson v. City of San Jose
- Edward Davila
- 5:22-cv-07186
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Thompson v. City of San Jose, Judge Corley dissolved a temporary restraining order blocking an encampment abatement.
The plaintiffs lost the temporary protection provided by the TRO, while the City of San Jose and the other defendants were no longer subject to that order. The underlying consolidated cases remained active.
What happened
In Thompson v. City of San Jose, the court reconsidered a temporary restraining order issued on November 16, 2022, without notice to the defendants or an opportunity for them to respond.
The defendants presented evidence that they had notified residents about the Columbus Park encampment abatement. The plan offered housing and other services, allowed residents to remain in vehicles in designated areas until housing became available, and provided storage for personal belongings for up to 90 days.
The court dissolved the temporary restraining order because the plaintiffs had not shown that they were likely to win their claims or suffer serious harm without the order. The cases remained active, and the plaintiffs had to file an amended consolidated complaint by January 5, 2023. Judge Corley issued the order.
The detailed version
- Thompson v. City of San Jose · No. 5:22-cv-07186
- Edward Davila
- Nov. 29, 2022
Background
On November 16, 2022, the court granted the plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) without notifying the defendants or giving them an opportunity to respond. The defendants later opposed the motion, and the court held a hearing on November 29, 2022. The hearing included the defendants, the plaintiffs in this case, and plaintiffs in a now-consolidated related case.
Court’s Reasoning
The defendants presented evidence that they had provided notice of the planned abatement of the Columbus Park encampment. According to the court, the abatement plan allowed residents to sign up for housing and other services; receive a placard permitting them to continue living in vehicles in the park or nearby paved areas until housing became available; and store personal belongings for up to 90 days. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success on their claims or a likelihood of irreparable harm without the TRO.
Ruling
The court dissolved the November 16, 2022 TRO. The court did not end the consolidated cases; they remained open and active. The plaintiffs were ordered to file an amended consolidated complaint by January 5, 2023, and the defendants therefore did not need to answer the two earlier separate complaints. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.