Cantrell v. Moynihan, et al

Filing 10

ORDER that the Court will not act on Plaintiff's apparent request for a TRO unless an application for a TRO is filed. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 04/29/10. (ESL)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Cynthia J. Cantrell, Plaintiff, vs. Brian T. Moynihan, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV10-0900 PHX DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff filed this action in Maricopa County Superior Court on March 29, 2010. Dkt. #1-1 at 4-12. Defendants removed the case to this court on April 23, 2010. Dkt. #1. The first page of Plaintiff's complaint suggests that she is seeking a temporary restraining order (Dkt. #1-1 at 4), but she has filed no separate application for a temporary restraining order ("TRO"). If Plaintiff seeks a TRO in this case, she must file an application for a TRO that complies with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. Plaintiff's application also must show that (a) she is likely to succeed on the merits of this case, (b) she is likely to suffer irreparable harm if a TRO is not entered, (c) the balance of equities tips in her favor, and (d) an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. NRDC, --- U.S. ---, 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008); see Am. Trucking Ass'n, Inc. v. City of L.A., 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009). The Court will not act on Plaintiff's apparent request for a TRO unless an application for a TRO is filed. DATED this 29th day of April, 2010.