Millman et al v. Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB et al

Filing 25

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Denying 21 Defendants' Ex Parte Application to Dissolve Temporary Restraining Order. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/16/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

STEPHEN J. MILLMAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10
11

Case No. 17-cv-04123-EMC
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ EX
PARTE APPLICATION TO DISSOLVE
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

v.
WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND
SOCIETY, FSB, et al.,

Docket No. 21

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

Defendants.
12
13

On October 10, 2017, Defendants Wilmington Trust and BSI Financial Services filed an

14

Application to Dissolve Temporary Restraining Order, arguing that the pre-removal state-court

15

temporary restraining order (TRO) had expired. Docket No. 21. Plaintiffs Lynda Millman and

16

Stephen Millman acknowledge that the TRO had expired. Docket No. 23. Defendants

17

nevertheless argue that an order dissolving the TRO is necessary, because “all of the existing state

18

court orders remain in effect until modified or dissolved by the federal court.” Docket No. 24 at 3.

19

“An ex parte temporary restraining order issued by a state court prior to removal remains

20

in force after removal no longer than it would have remained in effect under state law, but in no

21

event does the order remain in force longer than the time limitations imposed by Rule 65(b),

22

measured from the date of removal.” Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters &

23

Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 70 of Alameda Cty., 415 U.S. 423, 439-40 (1974) (emphasis added).

24

Rule 65(b) limits temporary restraining orders to 14 days. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(2). This action

25

was removed to federal court on July 20, 2017. Docket No. 1. Under law, the TRO therefore

26

expired on October 3, 2017. No party disputes this. See Docket Nos. 21, 23. An order

27

affirmatively dissolving the TRO is therefore unnecessary. See Granny Goose Foods, 415 U.S. at

28

434-35 (finding “no basis” for the argument that removal transforms state-court TROs into

1

“injunctions of unlimited duration” that terminate only when “affirmatively dissolved . . . by the

2

district court”).

3

Because the TRO has expired, Defendants’ Application is DENIED as moot.

4

This order disposes of Docket No. 21.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8
9
10

Dated: October 16, 2017
______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

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

2