Defend Affirmative Action Party (DAAP) et al v. Regents of University of California et al

Filing 15

ORDER REQUESTING RESPONSE TO TRO APPLICATION (vclc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/31/2016)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DEFEND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PARTY (DAAP), et al., Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 16-cv-01575-VC ORDER REQUESTING RESPONSE TO TRO APPLICATION Re: Dkt. No. 3 REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants. The defendants who have already been served (the Regents of the University of California, President Janet Napolitano, and Chancellor Nicholas B. Dirks) are ordered to file a response to the TRO application by 9 a.m. on Saturday, April 2, 2016. In addition to whatever other issues the defendants wish to discuss, the response should address the following questions: 1. Have the regulations governing ASUC elections been applied in a viewpoint-neutral manner, given the way those regulations have been applied to DAAP and CalSERVE? 2. Have the plaintiffs unreasonably delayed in seeking a TRO and/or notifying the defendants that they intended to seek a TRO? If so, does this affect the Court's analysis of whether a TRO should be granted? 3. If the Court denies the plaintiffs' application for a TRO, but later concludes that the plaintiffs' First Amendment rights have been violated, what relief will be available? Could the Court order a new election? The parties can assume the Court will issue a ruling by Saturday afternoon. In addition, counsel for the plaintiffs and the served defendants should make themselves available Saturday afternoon in case the Court wishes to hold oral argument. The plaintiffs are ordered to serve a copy of this order on the University of California's Office of the General Counsel by fax and e-mail. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 31, 2016 ______________________________________ VINCE CHHABRIA 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?