Fernandez et al v. Obesity Research Institute, LLC et al
Filing
24
ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 7/3/2013 DENYING 22 Motion for an Order to Show Cause without prejudice. Plaintiffs may refile their motion in compliance with LR 231. It is further ORDERED that 22 Motion for Appointment of Interim Class Counsel is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiffs should, if they choose to do so, file a properly noticed motion in compliance with LR 230. (Donati, J)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DEMARIE FERNANDEZ, et al.,
12
13
14
15
16
No. 2:13-cv-00975-MCE-KJN
Plaintiffs,
v.
ORDER
OBESITY RESEARCH INSTITUTE,
LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
17
18
The Court is in receipt of an Ex Parte Application for an Order to Show Cause
19
Why Temporary Restraining Order Should Not Be Issued and to Appoint Interim Class
20
Counsel Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(3) (“Application”), filed by
21
Plaintiffs Demarie Fernandez, Alfonso Mendoza, and Rhonda Stanley (collectively,
22
“Plaintiffs”). (ECF No. 22.)
23
Issuance of a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) as a form of preliminary
24
injunctive relief “is an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear
25
showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter v. Natural Res. Defense
26
Council, 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008). The propriety of a TRO hinges on a significant threat of
27
irreparable injury that must be imminent in nature. Caribbean Marine Servs. Co. v.
28
Baldridge, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988).
1
1
Thus, Local Rule 231 requires that every application for a TRO be accompanied by “an
2
affidavit in support of the existence of an irreparable injury.” See E.D. Cal. R. 231(c).
3
Plaintiffs’ instant Application fails to comply with Rule 231(c)’s procedural requirements
4
because it is not accompanied by such an affidavit. The memorandum of points and
5
authorities filed in support of the Application also contains no allegations suggesting that
6
the claimed harm is so imminent in nature that Plaintiffs could not seek relief through a
7
properly noticed motion for preliminary injunction. See E.D. Cal. R. 231(b) (providing
8
that, in reviewing a TRO request, the Court considers whether the applicant could have
9
sought relief by motion for preliminary injunction).
10
Additionally, the Temporary Restraining Order Procedures located on the Court’s
11
website require a party filing a TRO motion to complete the TRO Checklist and file it as
12
an attachment to the parties’ motion in CM/ECF.1 Plaintiffs’ instant Ex Parte Application
13
does not contain the requisite TRO Checklist.2
14
Due to Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the Court’s procedural requirements,
15
Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application for an Order to Show Cause Why a Temporary
16
Restraining Order Should Not Be Issued will be denied without prejudice. Plaintiffs may
17
refile their Application in compliance with Local Rules or file a properly noticed motion for
18
preliminary injunction.
19
As to Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application to Appoint Interim Class Counsel, Plaintiffs
20
are hereby advised that this Court disfavors ex parte applications when the requested
21
relief could have been or can be sought through a regularly noticed motion. See
22
Fernandez v. City of Los Angeles, 2009 WL 2169482, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Jul. 16, 2009) (“Ex
23
parte relief is generally disfavored when relief may be had through a regularly-noticed
24
motion.
25
26
27
28
1
See http://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/cmecf-e-filing/temporary-restrainingorder-tro-procedures/ (last visited July 3, 2013).
2
The Court’s Temporary Restraining Order Procedures also require that, when filing a TRO
request in CM/ECF, a party must choose Motion for Temporary Restraining Order under the Motions
category, so the court receives appropriate notice of the filing. Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with this
procedural requirement has caused delays in bringing the instant Application to the Court’s attention.
2
1
[It] will only be granted upon an adequate showing of good cause or irreparable injury to
2
the party seeking relief.”); U.S. v. Western Titanium, Inc., 2010 WL 3789775, at *2 (S.D.
3
Cal. Sep. 27, 2010) (“[T]he ex parte filing of documents . . . would be disfavored by the
4
Court and would not be permitted absent a compelling showing of need.”). Plaintiffs
5
have failed to make a compelling showing of need or to demonstrate good cause in
6
seeking the appointment of interim class counsel on an ex parte basis. Since nothing in
7
Plaintiffs’ moving papers indicates that they cannot seek the requested relief through a
8
regular motion, the Court will deny Plaintiffs’ Application to Appoint Interim Class
9
Counsel without prejudice to refiling as a properly noticed motion. See E.D. Cal. R. 230.
10
For the reasons set forth above, it is hereby ordered as follows:
11
1.
Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application for an Order to Show Cause Why
12
Temporary Restraining Order Should Not Be Issued (ECF No. 22) is DENIED WITHOUT
13
PREJUDICE. Plaintiffs may refile their Application in compliance with Local Rule 231
14
and the Court’s Temporary Restraining Order Procedures or file a properly noticed
15
motion for preliminary injunction.
16
2.
Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application to Appoint Interim Class Counsel (ECF
17
No. 22) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiffs should, if they choose to do so,
18
file a properly noticed motion in compliance with Local Rule 230.
19
20
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 3, 2013
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?