Salman et al v. Phoenix, City of et al

Filing 92

ORDER that Plaintiffs' motion for TRO, (Doc. 91 ), is hereby DENIED. See order for complete details. Signed by Senior Judge James A. Teilborg on 12/21/15. (NKS)

Download PDF
WO 1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Michael Salman, et al., Plaintiffs, 10 11 ORDER v. 12 No. CV-12-01219-PHX-JAT Phoenix, City of, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Michael and Suzanne Salman (“Plaintiffs”)s’ motion 16 for Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) against Defendants’ City of Phoenix, et al. 17 (Doc. 91). Plaintiffs seek the Court’s intervention on an emergency basis to “host home 18 groups” and hold “bible studies” over Christmas. (Id. at 4). 19 The Court is cognizant of the calendar date and acknowledges the importance of 20 this time of year to those of faith. At the same time, however, the Court notes that 21 Plaintiffs have been aware of the annual “high holiday of their faith,” (Doc. 91 at 4), for 22 quite some time, given its fixed position on the calendar. A plaintiff may not circumvent 23 the notice requirement by waiting so long to file a motion for TRO that he creates his 24 own emergency. See e.g. Martin v. Family Lending Servs., No. 09-CV-2133-PHX-ROS, 25 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100453, at *3 (D. Ariz. Oct. 15, 2009) (citation omitted) (noting 26 that a plaintiff may not create her own emergency to circumvent the notice requirement in 27 seeking TRO); Best Deals on TV, Inc. v. Naveed, 2007 WL902564, *4 (N.D. Cal. 2007) 28 (noting that a plaintiff cannot show the need for temporary restraining order without 1 notice when he waited months after learning of the situation to file the request); Comcast 2 of Illinois X, LLC v. Till, 293 F.Supp.2d 936, 938-39 (E.D. Wisc. 2003). By waiting until 3 December 21, and seeking to “host home groups” and “have bible studies” during 4 Christmas, Plaintiffs have effectively precluded Defendants from filing any kind of 5 meaningful response on the issue, and have created their own emergency.1 6 Moreover, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to establish that Defendants 7 have demonstrated new initiative to prosecute them for their activities. Plaintiffs assert 8 that prosecution by Defendants is “real and [imminent].” (Doc. 91 at 4). But the letters 9 submitted to the Court are from February 23, May 8, and September 20, 2007, 10 respectively. (Id. at 7-11). Plaintiffs assert that Defendants have broken up bible study 11 groups at Plaintiffs’ home on two “separate occasions,” but fail to provide any evidence 12 of this, or even to provide the Court with specific dates to support their argument that 13 prosecution is “imminent.” Taken together, Plaintiffs’ factual basis for TRO is 14 insufficient to warrant that the Court intervene on an emergency basis. 15 For these reasons, the Court will deny Plaintiffs’ motion for TRO. (Doc. 91). The 16 Court will address Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, (Doc. 90), when briefing 17 has been completed. 18 Accordingly, 19 / 20 / 21 / 22 / 23 / 24 / 25 / 26 1 27 28 Plaintiffs argue that they filed a motion for preliminary injunction on December 7, 2015, and that Defendants have “had ample time to” respond. (Doc. 91 at 4-5). This is not proper grounds to seek intervention from the Court via TRO. Defendants are still entitled to file a timely response to Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction in accordance with this Court’s rules. See LRCiv 7.2(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1). -2- 1 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for TRO, (Doc. 91), is hereby DENIED. 2 3 Dated this 21st day of December, 2015. 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 -3-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?