Marshbanks et al v. City of Stockton et al

Filing 5

ORDER denying plaintiffs' 4 Motion for TRO, signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., on 11/26/13. (Kastilahn, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 TONI MARSHBANKS and DOROTHE MARSHBANKS, Plaintiffs, 13 ORDER v. 14 15 No. 2:13-cv-02400-MCE-KJN-PS CITY OF STOCKTON and SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, 16 Defendants. 17 Plaintiffs Toni and Dorothe Marshbanks (“Plaintiffs”) ask that the Court issue a 18 19 temporary restraining order (“TRO”) against Defendants City of Stockton and San 20 Joaquin County (“Defendants”) to prevent San Joaquin County from auctioning property 21 at 417 South Broadway Avenue and to prevent the City of Stockton from allowing 22 anyone access to the property. Plaintiffs’ Motion for TRO was filed on November 21, 2013. ECF No. 4. The 23 24 Local Rules of the Eastern District of California require that the party seeking a TRO file 25 the following documents: 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 1 6 1) a complaint; 2) a motion for a temporary restraining order; 3) a brief on all relevant legal issues presented by the motion; 4) an affidavit in support of the existence of irreparable injury; 5) an affidavit detailing the notice or efforts to effect notice to the affected parties or counsel or showing good cause why notice should not be given; 6) a proposed temporary restraining order with a provision for bond; [and] 7) a proposed order with blanks for fixing the time and date for hearing a motion for preliminary injunction, the date for the filing of responsive papers and amount of the bond, if any, and the date and hour of issuance . . . . 7 E.D. Cal. Local R. 231(c). Under the local rules, “[n]o hearing on a temporary restraining 8 order will normally be set unless the[se] documents are provided to the Court and, 9 unless impossible under the circumstances, to the affected parties or their counsel.” Id. 2 3 4 5 10 Here, Plaintiffs have filed only a complaint and a motion for a temporary 11 restraining order. Additionally, there is no indication that Defendants have been served 12 with the relevant documents, or have notice of this lawsuit at all. Plaintiffs have therefore 13 failed to comply with the local rules. As such, Plaintiffs’ Motion for TRO is DENIED. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: November 26, 2013 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?