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)

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