Franklin et al v. Allstate Corporation et al
Filing
7
ORDER deferring ruling on 3 plaintiffs' ex parte application for temporary restraining order until Friday, March 17, 2006, to afford plaintiffs the opportunity to serve the defendants and file proof of such service, or to file the certification required by Rule 65(b). Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on 3/14/2006. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/14/2006)
<![CDATA[
Franklin et al v. Allstate Corporation et al
Doc. 7
Case 3:06-cv-01909-MMC
Document 7
Filed 03/14/2006
Page 1 of 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
United States District Court
11
For the Northern District of California
LaRELL FRANKLIN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ALLSTATE CORPORATION et al., Defendants. /
No. C-06-1909 MMC ORDER DEFERRING RULING ON PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (Docket No. 3)
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Before the Court is plaintiffs' ex parte application for temporary restraining order and motion for preliminary injunction, filed March 13, 2006. Pursuant to Rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court may issue a temporary restraining order ex parte only under very limited circumstances: A temporary restraining order may be granted without written or oral notice to the adverse party or that party's attorney only if (1) it clearly appears from the specific facts shown 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. P. 65(b). Plaintiffs have not submitted the requisite certification as to the efforts made to provide notice to defendants of the instant application or the reasons why such notice should not be required.
Dockets.Justia.com
Case 3:06-cv-01909-MMC
Document 7
Filed 03/14/2006
Page 2 of 2
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
Accordingly, the Court will defer ruling on the instant application until Friday, March 17, 2006, to afford plaintiffs the opportunity to serve the defendants and file proof of such service, or to file the certification required by Rule 65(b). IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 14, 2006 MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge
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?
