Salman et al v. Phoenix, City of et al

Filing 10

ORDER - Therefore, IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiffs' amended motion for a temporary restraining order (doc.7). We again urge plaintiffs to seek the advice of a lawyer. Signed by Judge Frederick J Martone on 4/21/11.(LAD)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Michael Salman and Suzanne Salman,
Plaintiffs,

10
11

vs.

12

City of Phoenix, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV-11-646-PHX-FJM
ORDER

15

We have before us plaintiffs’ amended motion for a temporary restraining order (doc.

16

7) and amended memorandum in support (doc. 8). We denied plaintiffs’ first motion for a

17

restraining order because they failed to satisfy any of the conditions for the granting of

18

injunctive relief. See Order of April 8, 2011 (doc. 5). Plaintiffs make no additional

19

allegations that support their renewed application. The amended motion only deals with the

20

page limit issue we raised. It fails to address the substantive reasons for our denial of relief.

21

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiffs’ amended motion for a temporary

22

restraining order (doc.7).

23

We again urge plaintiffs to seek the advice of a lawyer.

24

DATED this 21st day of April, 2011.

25
26
27
28