Terry Williams-IIunga v. Andrea Gonzalez et al

Filing 42

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE APPLICATION RE: RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DISSOLVING TRO 28 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson (lc). Modified on 11/30/2012 (lc).

1
2

O

3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TERRY WILLIAMS-ILUNGA,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
ANDREA GONZALEZ; et al.,
Defendants.

16
___________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 12-08592 DDP (AJWx)
ORDER DENYING EX PARTE
APPLICATION RE: RECONSIDERATION
OF ORDER DISSOLVING TRO
[Dkt. No. 28]

17
18

Presently before the court is Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application

19

RE: Reconsideration of Order Dissolving TRO / Denying Issuance of

20

Preliminary Injunction.

21

Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.

22

applies for reconsideration of that Order for two reasons.

23

she states that she did not receive notice of Defendants’

24

opposition to her Motion for Preliminary Injunction until the

25

morning of the hearing.

26

the opportunity to consider Defendants’ documents in support of

27

their opposition.

28

On November 7, 2012, this court denied
Plaintiff here
First,

Second, she asserts that she did not have

Ex parte relief is generally disfavored when relief may be had

1

through a regularly noticed motion.

2

an adequate showing of good cause or irreparable injury to the

3

party seeking relief.

4

883 F.Supp. 488, 492 (C.D. Cal. 1995).

5

Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Plaintiff had

6

ample opportunity to present her arguments in support of the

7

Preliminary Injunction, and the court gave them due consideration

8

but declined to issue an injunction.

9

Plaintiff was prejudiced by her limited opportunity to consider

10

Defendants’ Opposition to the Preliminary Injunction; the court

11

agrees with Defendants that their Opposition should not be

12

construed as a motion to dissolve a temporary restraining order and

13

that therefore the notice requirement of Federal Rule of Civil

14

Procedure 65 is inapplicable.

15

It will be granted only upon

Mission Power Eng’g Co. v. Cont’l Cas. Co.,
At the hearing on

The court does not find that

Because Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction had a

16

full and fair hearing, the court finds that Plaintiff’s Ex Parte

17

Application does not meet the high standard for ex parte relief.

18

If Plaintiff wishes the court to reconsider the denial of the

19

Preliminary Injunction, she should file a regularly noticed motion

20

for reconsideration, bearing in mind the requirements for such

21

motions established by Local Rule 7-18.

22

For these reasons, the Ex Parte Application is DENIED.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26

Dated: November 30, 2012
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge

27
28
2