Borum et al v. Quarles

Filing 14

ORDER granting 6 Motion to Dissolve State Court Ordered Temporary Restraining Order. Signed by Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren on May 30, 2013. (sh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
JUSTIN HEATH BORUM and
JIMMY DARRELL BORUM

PLAINTIFFS

v.

Case No. 13-2110

BRANDON GENE QUARLES

DEFENDANT
ORDER

Now

on

the

30th

day

of

May,

2013,

the

above

referenced

matter comes before the Court for consideration of defendant’s
Motion

to

Dissolve

State

Order (document #6).

Court

Ordered

Temporary

Restraining

The Court, being well and sufficiently

advised, finds and orders as follows:
1.

Plaintiffs commenced this action on March 27, 2013 by

the filing of a Petition for Declaratory Judgment and Temporary
Restraining Order and Permanent Injunction in the Circuit Court
of Sebastian County, Arkansas.
2.

On the same date, plaintiffs sought and obtained an ex

parte Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) against the defendant.
The TRO did not provide any date upon which it expired, but
provided that there would be a hearing on May 2, 2013 at 1:30
p.m. “to determine if the injunction shall be maintained during
the pendency of this matter.”

1

3.

On April 19, 2013, defendant removed the matter to this

Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).
4.

In

the

instant

motion,

the

defendant

reconsideration and termination of the TRO.

now

seeks

The plaintiffs have

not responded to the motion to dissolve the TRO.
5.

According to caselaw, “[a]fter removal . . . state

court orders remain in effect but ‘federal rather than state law
governs the future course of proceedings.’” Palmisano v. Allina
Health Systems, Inc., 190 F.3d 881, 885 (8th Cir. 1999)(citing
Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters, 415 U.S.
423, 437 (1974)).

Further, “[a]n ex parte temporary restraining

order issued by a state court prior to removal remains in force
after removal no longer than it would have remained in effect
under state law, but in no event does the order remain in force
longer than the time limitations imposed by Rule 65(b), measured
from the date of removal.”
440.

For

restraining

Granny Goose Foods, 415 U.S. at 439-

orders

entered

without

notice,

Rule

65(b)(2) provides the time for termination not to exceed fourteen
(14) days without good cause.
6.
removal,

Taking into account the above requirements, the date of
and

the

lack

of

arguments

2

for

continuation

by

the

plaintiffs, the Court finds that the temporary restraining order
is dissolved.
IT
Dissolve

IS,

THEREFORE,

State

Court

ORDERED
Ordered

that

defendant’s

Temporary

Motion

Restraining

to

Order

(document #6) is granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Jimm Larry Hendren
JIMM LARRY HENDREN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3