Hughes v. Hess
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:23-cv-01063
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Hughes v. City of San Rafael, Judge Rogers dissolved the temporary restraining order and denied preliminary-injunction relief, allowing plaintiffs to amend their complaint.
The plaintiffs, including Deanna Hughes, and the defendants, including the City of San Rafael, are affected by the dissolution of the temporary restraining order and denial of preliminary-injunction relief.
What happened
In Deanna Hughes, et al. v. City of San Rafael, et al., the plaintiffs challenged an alleged plan to forcibly remove them from Albert Park during a projected storm. The court had temporarily barred the defendants from removing them until a March 20 hearing.
The court ruled that the additional relief the plaintiffs requested went beyond the allegations in their complaint. It also found that the emergency underlying the temporary order had passed and that the defendants had an opportunity to respond. The court dissolved the temporary restraining order and denied the request for a preliminary injunction.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers allowed the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint by April 24, 2023. If they did not do so, the court stated that it would dismiss the action on its own.
The detailed version
- Hughes v. Hess · No. 4:23-cv-01063
- Yvonne Rogers
- Mar. 20, 2023
Background
On March 9, 2023, the court granted the plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order (TRO), which temporarily barred the defendants from removing the plaintiffs from Albert Park until a hearing on March 20. The plaintiffs’ claims were based on an alleged plan to forcibly remove them from the park in San Rafael during a projected storm on March 13.
The court ordered additional briefing about a preliminary injunction, which is an order intended to preserve the situation while a case continues. The plaintiffs asked for several forms of relief, including an order barring the city from sharing their personal information in violation of California Welfare and Institutions Code section 10850(a), relief concerning the handling of their property, and an extension of the TRO preventing the defendants from moving their encampment until the weather was certain to be clear.
Court’s Reasoning
At the March 20 hearing, the court stated that the requested relief went beyond the allegations in the complaint and therefore beyond the court’s authority to issue an injunction. The court also stated that the urgency supporting the original TRO had passed and that the defendants had received an opportunity to respond.
Ruling and Further Proceedings
The court dissolved the temporary restraining order and denied the request for preliminary injunctive relief. The order terminated Docket No. 2. The plaintiffs may file an amended complaint by April 24, 2023; if they do, the defendants must respond within 30 days. If the plaintiffs do not file an amended complaint, the court stated that it will dismiss the action on its own.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered the order on March 20, 2023.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.