Winkfield v. Childrens Hospital Oakland et al

Filing 5

ORDER DEFERRING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS 2 APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER. Responses due by 1/2/2014. Replies due by 1/3/2014. Motion Hearing set for 1/7/2014 01:00 PM before Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 12/30/2013. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/30/2013)

Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 5 LATASHA WINKFIELD, as an individual and as guardian ad litem and mother of Jahi McMath, 6 7 8 9 Plaintiff, v. CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTER AT OAKLAND; DR. DAVID DURAND, United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 No. C 13-5993 SBA ORDER DEFERRING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (Docket No. 2) Defendants. ________________________________/ On December 30, 2013, Plaintiff Latasha Winkfield moved ex 13 parte for a temporary restraining order (TRO) seeking to keep Jahi 14 McMath on cardio pulmonary support and to insert a gastric tube 15 and a tracheostomy tube to allow her to be transferred to another 16 facility. 17 Oakland and Dr. David Durand filed an opposition. 18 day, the Alameda County Superior Court entered an order extending 19 its TRO requiring Defendants to maintain the status quo of 20 treatment provided to McMath, but declining to order insertion of 21 a gastric tube or a tracheostomy tube. Defendants Children’s Hospital & Research Center at On the same 22 To qualify for a temporary restraining order, the moving 23 party must demonstrate “(1) a likelihood of success on the merits; 24 (2) a significant threat of irreparable injury; (3) that the 25 balance of hardships favors the applicant; and (4) whether any 26 public interest favors granting an injunction.” 27 Ashcroft, 352 F.3d 1222, 1227 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Winter v. 28 Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008). Raich v. 1 Alternatively, a temporary restraining order could issue where 2 “the likelihood of success is such that serious questions going to 3 the merits were raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply 4 in plaintiff’s favor,” so long as the plaintiff demonstrates 5 irreparable harm and shows that the injunction is in the public 6 interest. 7 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation and internal quotation and 8 editing marks omitted). Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d After considering the papers and the impact of the 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 9 continuation of the state court’s TRO, the Court defers 11 consideration of the application with respect to maintaining the 12 status quo of treatment provided to McMath, and DENIES Plaintiff’s 13 application with regard to insertion of a gastric tube and a 14 tracheostomy tube. 15 preliminary injunction at a hearing before Judge Armstrong on 16 January 7, 2014 at 1:00 PM. 17 than January 2, 2014 at 12:00 PM. 18 no later than January 3, 2014 at 5:00 PM. 19 reply no later than January 6, 2014 at 9:00 AM. 20 The Court will consider a motion for Plaintiff may file a brief no later Defendants may file a response Plaintiff may file a IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 23 Dated: 12/30/2013 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28 2