d.light design, Inc. et al v. Boxin Solar Co., Ltd. et al

Filing 67

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Granting 65 Plaintiffs' Application for Extension of Temporary Restraining Order. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/18/2014)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

D.LIGHT DESIGN, INC., et al.,

9

Plaintiffs,
v.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C-13-5988 EMC

BOXIN SOLAR CO., LTD., et al.,

12

Defendants.
___________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
(Docket No. 65)

13
14
15

Plaintiffs have moved for an extension of the temporary restraining order (“TRO”)

16

previously issued by the Court. The Court finds that there is good cause for the extension, more

17

specifically, because the grounds for originally granting the TRO continue to exist. See Wright, et

18

al., Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 2953 (noting that “a showing that the grounds for originally granting the

19

temporary restraining order continue to exist should be sufficient” to establish good cause for an

20

extension).

21

The only issue is how long the TRO should last. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65

22

indicates that an extension should last for only 14 days. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(2). Plaintiffs

23

acknowledge the text of the rule but have still asked that the TRO be extended until March 13, 2014,

24

i.e., the day of the preliminary injunction hearing.

25

The Court concludes that an extension of the TRO until March 13 is appropriate. As the

26

Wright & Miller treatise notes, an extension beyond 14 days is “legitimate when the preliminary

27

injunction hearing has not been held within that time.” Wright, et al., Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 2953.

28

See, e.g., Trefelner v. Burrell Sch. Dist., 655 F. Supp. 2d 581, 599 (W.D. Pa. 2009) (holding that,

1

“[s]ince discovery is needed before the court will decide the motion for preliminary injunction, the

2

temporary restraining order will remain in effect until the hearing on the preliminary injunction [i.e.,

3

approximately six weeks]”).

4

The Court notes, however, that its ruling here does not bar Defendants from moving to

5

dissolve the TRO prior to the hearing on the preliminary injunction. Cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(4)

6

(allowing the adverse party to move to dissolve or modify the TRO “[o]n 2 days’ notice to the party

7

who obtained the order without notice – or on shorter notice set by the court”).

8
9

Moreover, because the TRO is being extended for more than 14 days, it shall be deemed a
preliminary injunction – not for all purposes but simply for the purpose of permitting Defendants to
take an appeal, if desired. See Wright, et al., Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 2953 (stating that, “although it

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

undoubtedly is appropriate to allow an appeal from the restraining order in order to test its validity

12

once it has been extended beyond the time allowed by the rule, there is no reason why the order then

13

must become a preliminary injunction for all purposes”); see also Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61,

14

87 (1974) (noting that “[a] district court, if it were able to shield its orders from appellate review

15

merely by designating them as temporary restraining orders, rather than as preliminary injunctions,

16

would have virtually unlimited authority over the parties in an injunctive proceeding”).

17

Finally, the Court orders Plaintiffs to immediately serve a copy of this order on all

18

Defendants by the best means practicable. Plaintiffs shall file a declaration confirming and

19

describing service no later than February 21, 2014. The Court notes that Plaintiffs failed to serve

20

a copy of their motion for an extension on Defendants. The Court does not condone or

21

approve of Plaintiffs’ failure. Plaintiffs are forewarned that failure to serve in the future may

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

2

1

be the basis for sanctions, including but not limited to dissolution of any injunctive relief and

2

or monetary sanctions. However, at this juncture in the proceedings, the Court shall not deny the

3

extension of the TRO based on the failure to serve.

4

The motion is GRANTED.

5

This order disposes of Docket No. 65.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

Dated: February 18, 2014
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3