Pangea Legal Services et al v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security et al

Filing 74

ORDER CONVERTING TRO TO PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 11/24/2020)

Case 3:20-cv-07721-SI Document 74 Filed 11/24/20 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

PANGEA LEGAL SERVICES, et al.,

8

Plaintiffs,

9
10
11

v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY, et al.,

Case No. 20-cv-07721-SI
ORDER CONVERTING TRO TO
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION;
SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13
14

On November 19, 2020, the Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining

15

order (“TRO”). Dkt. No. 69. The TRO enjoined “Defendants and their officers, agents, servants,

16

employees, and attorneys, and any other person or entity subject to their control or acting directly

17

or indirectly in concert or participation with Defendants, from implementing or enforcing the rule

18

titled Procedures for Asylum and Bars to Asylum Eligibility, 85 Fed. Reg. 67202 (Oct. 21, 2020)

19

(‘the Rule’).” Id. at 46. The Court ordered that the TRO be effective immediately and that it would

20

remain in effect until further order of the Court. Id. The Court also set a date for a preliminary

21

injunction hearing and ordered that the parties submit a briefing schedule no later than November

22

23, 2020. Id. at 47.

23

The parties have submitted their statement regarding the preliminary injunction schedule.

24

Dkt. No. 73. Plaintiffs request that, “before converting the existing TRO into a preliminary

25

injunction,[footnote] the Court order additional briefing limited to the issues raised in Plaintiffs’

26

complaint and motion papers that the Court has not yet addressed.” Id. at 2. Plaintiffs note that in

27

issuing the TRO, the Court reserved ruling on the questions of whether the Rule violates the

28

Regulatory Flexibility Act by failing to consider the impact on “small entities” and whether the Rule

Case 3:20-cv-07721-SI Document 74 Filed 11/24/20 Page 2 of 2

1

improperly fails to include a federalism impact statement or certification. Id. Plaintiffs propose a

2

briefing schedule, with page limits, for the issues that were not addressed in the ruling on the TRO.

3

Defendants state that they “consent to the conversion of the TRO into a preliminary injunction, and

4

so no further briefing is necessary.” Id. at 3. They observe that the standards for issuing a TRO and

5

a preliminary injunction are the same and that the TRO here already functionally operates as a

6

preliminary injunction. Id. Defendants also state, “Nor does a party need to receive relief on all of

7

its claims. A temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction on one ground suffices to enjoin

8

the defendant’s [sic] activity. Any additional arguments can be dealt with at the summary-judgment

9

stage in this APA record-review case.” Id.
Under these circumstances, where defendants do not oppose converting the TRO into a

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

preliminary injunction, the Court finds that further briefing and argument on an unopposed

12

preliminary injunction motion would be unnecessary and a waste of the parties’ resources. The

13

Court agrees with defendants that any issues left unresolved by the Court’s prior order may be

14

addressed on the merits later in this case.

15

Accordingly, the Court hereby CONVERTS the TRO issued November 19, 2020, into

16

a preliminary injunction. See Dkt. No. 69. The Court ENJOINS Defendants and their officers,

17

agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and any other person or entity subject to their control or

18

acting directly or indirectly in concert or participation with Defendants, from implementing or

19

enforcing the rule titled Procedures for Asylum and Bars to Asylum Eligibility, 85 Fed. Reg. 67202

20

(Oct. 21, 2020). This injunction shall remain in effect pending the final disposition of this action.

21

The parties are directed to meet and confer regarding further dates and whether any

22

discovery is needed. The Court sets an initial case management conference for December 22,

23

2020, at 11:00 a.m., to be held over the Court’s AT&T conference call line. The parties are directed

24

to file a joint case management statement by December 15, 2020.

25
26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 24, 2020
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge
2