County of Madera v. Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians, et al.

Filing 13

ORDER setting hearing date of December 15, 2006 at 1:30 p.m. on Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order signed by Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 12/1/06. (Nazaroff, H)

Download PDF
County of Madera v. Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians, et al. Doc. 13 Case 1:06-cv-01698-AWI-DLB 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Document 13 Filed 12/01/2006 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 This case was removed from the Superior Court of Madera County. The County of 19 Madera ("the County") seeks to enjoin the Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians, 20 including the tribal council and individual tribe members, (collectively "the Tribe") and a 21 construction company (McCarthy Building Companies) hired by the Tribe from continuing to 22 violate a "stop work order" issued by the County. Specifically, the County seeks to enjoin further 23 demolition and grading on land owned by the Tribe and to require the Tribe to obtain the 24 appropriate demolition and grading permits from the County. 25 On November 28, 2006, the County filed an "ex parte application" for a temporary 26 restraining order. "A temporary restraining order may be granted without written or oral notice 27 to the adverse party or that party's attorney only if (1) it clearly appears from specific facts shown 28 ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) v. ) ) PICAYUNE RANCHERIA OF THE ) CHUKCHANSI INDIANS, a tribal ) entity, et. al., ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________) COUNTY OF MADERA, a political subdivision of the State of California CIV F 06-1698 AWI DLB ORDER SETTING HEARING DATE OF DECEMBER 15, 2006, ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:06-cv-01698-AWI-DLB 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 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: ciem0h December 1, 2006 3. 4. 2. 1. Document 13 Filed 12/01/2006 Page 2 of 2 by affidavit or by the verified complaint that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the applicant before the adverse party or that party's attorney can be heard in opposition, and (2) the applicant's attorney certifies to the court in writing the efforts, if any, which have been made to give the notice and the reasons supporting the claim that notice should not be required." Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 65(b). Here, the County has not certified the reasons why notice should not be required. In fact, the County counsel's declaration indicates that he was able to give oral and written notice to the Defendants's respective counsel, see Fuchs Declaration at 12-14, and the notice states that the County will seek a temporary restraining order at a hearing to be determined by the Court. See id. at Exhibits 9 & 10. Since the requirements of Rule 65(b) have not been met, the Court will not issue a temporary restraining order at this time. Instead, the Court sets the following hearing date and briefing schedule: The hearing on the County's motion for a temporary restraining order will be held on Friday, December 15, 2006, at 1:30 p.m.; All Defendants may file an opposition to the County's motion by 1:00 p.m., December 8, 2006; The County may file a reply by 4:00 p.m., December 12, 2006, to any oppositions; and The County shall provide notice to all Defendants of this hearing and briefing schedule upon receipt of this order.1 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Additionally, both parties have referenced a hearing scheduled for December 1, 2006, before District Judge Fogel of the Northern District of California. As part of the briefing in this case, the parties are invited to further brief the significance of the Northern District hearing and the possible effects of a ruling in that case to the matter at bar. 2 1

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?