Erdmann-Browning v. Vilsack
- Jon Tigar
- 4:23-cv-04678
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Erdmann-Browning v. Vilsack, Judge Tigar denied the temporary restraining order without prejudice, deferred class-certification ruling, and scheduled an injunction hearing.
The order directly affected plaintiffs Anika Okje Erdmann-Browning and Jacqueline Benitez and defendants Thomas J. Vilsack and the other defendants named in the case. It denied the requested temporary restraining order without prejudice, left provisional class certification unresolved, and set dates for further proceedings.
What happened
Erdmann-Browning v. Vilsack involved plaintiffs Anika Okje Erdmann-Browning and Jacqueline Benitez’s requests for a temporary restraining order and provisional class certification. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.
The court denied the temporary restraining order without prejudice because the plaintiffs had not clearly shown that immediate, irreparable harm would occur before the defendants could respond. The court also found that the defendants had not yet received a reasonable opportunity to be heard and therefore deferred ruling on provisional class certification.
Judge Jon S. Tigar scheduled a September 27, 2023 hearing on the injunction request and class-certification motion. The defendants’ opposition was due September 20, the plaintiffs’ reply was due September 22, and a case-management conference was set for September 19; both proceedings were to occur by video unless the court ordered otherwise.
The detailed version
- Erdmann-Browning v. Vilsack · No. 4:23-cv-04678
- Jon Tigar
- Sept. 14, 2023
Requests before the court
Plaintiffs Anika Okje Erdmann-Browning and Jacqueline Benitez filed an application for provisional class certification and a motion for a temporary restraining order, along with a request for an order requiring the defendants to explain why a preliminary injunction should not issue. The defendants were Thomas J. Vilsack and other defendants.
A temporary restraining order is a short-term order intended to prevent immediate harm before the court can fully hear the parties. Provisional class certification is an initial decision about whether a case may proceed on behalf of a proposed group of people.
Rulings
The court denied the motion for a temporary restraining order without prejudice. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1), the plaintiffs had to clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage would occur before the opposing party could be heard. The court found that they had not made that showing.
The court also noted that the defendants had submitted a shortened response one day after the motion was filed but had not yet had reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard. The court found the defendants’ request for additional time to submit a fuller response justified under the circumstances.
The court deferred ruling on the application for provisional class certification. It set a September 27, 2023 hearing at 9:30 a.m. on the plaintiffs’ request for an injunction and their motion for provisional class certification. The defendants’ opposition was due September 20, 2023, and the plaintiffs’ reply was due September 22, 2023. The court also set a case-management conference for September 19, 2023, at 9:30 a.m. Unless the court ordered otherwise, both proceedings would occur by Zoom.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.