Marin Alliance for Medical Marijuana et al v. Holder et al

Filing 32

ORDER re 5 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by John D'Amato, Marin Alliance for Medical Marijuana. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 11/16/11. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/16/2011)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4

OAKLAND DIVISION

5
6 MARIN ALLIANCE FOR MEDICAL
7
8
9
10
11

MARIJUANA, a not-for-profit association;
JOHN D’AMATO, an individual, MED
THRIVE, INC. a not-for-profit cooperative
corporation doing business as MedThrive
Cooperative; THE JANE PLOTITSA
SHELTER TRUST, a revocable living trust;
and THE FELM TRUST, an irrevocable
living trust; THE DIVINITY TREE
PATIENTS’ WELLNESS COOPERATIVE,
INC., a non profit cooperative corporation,

ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’
AMENDED MOTION FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER

Plaintiffs,

12
13

Case No: C 11-5349 SBA

vs.

14 ERIC HOLDER, Attorney General of the

United States; MICHELLE LEONHART,
15 Administrator of the Drug Enforcement

Administration; HON. MELINDA HAAG,
16 U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of

California,
17

Defendants.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

On November 4, 2011, Plaintiffs filed the instant action and motion for temporary
restraining order (“TRO”) and preliminary injunction seeking to prevent the federal
government from arresting, prosecuting, or otherwise seeking sanctions or forfeitures
against medical marijuana growers and providers who operate under the auspices of
California law. Dkt. 1, 5.
At the direction of the Court, the parties met and conferred regarding a briefing
schedule on Plaintiff’s motion. By letter dated November 10, 2011, Plaintiffs state that the
parties agreed that Defendants would file their response to the TRO motion only by no later
than November 15, 2011, and that once the TRO is resolved, the parties will meet and

1

confer regarding a briefing schedule on Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. Dkt.

2

20. On November 11, 2011, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and amended motion for

3

TRO and preliminary injunction. Dkt. 21, 23. Defendants filed their opposition to

4

Plaintiffs’ amended motion for TRO on November 15, 2011. Dkt. 31.

5

Given the exigent circumstances alleged by Plaintiffs, the Court deems the motion

6

for TRO fully briefed.1 In addition, given the briefs submitted, a reply brief is unnecessary

7

for the Court to render an informed decision on the TRO request. As such, the parties may

8

not submit any additional memoranda or other filings in connection with Plaintiff’s motion

9

for TRO. Any papers filed in contravention of this Order will be stricken by the Court.

10

Pursuant to the Civil Local Rule 7-1(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b), the

11

Court may resolve the motion without a hearing.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 16, 2011

______________________________
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge

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

1

The Court notes that Plaintiffs have had ample opportunity to brief the salient
issues. Both Plaintiffs’ original and amended TRO motions are thirty-one pages in length,
which well exceeds the twenty-five page limit imposed by Civil Local Rule 7-2(b), and the
fifteen page limit set forth in this Court’s Standing Orders. See Dkt. 15 at 5. Plaintiffs
neither sought nor obtained prior leave of Court to file oversized briefs. Although the
Court would be well within its discretion to strike Plaintiffs’ non-compliant briefs, the
Court declines to do so at this time. However, Plaintiffs are warned that further
transgressions of the Court’s Local Rules and/or Standing Order may result in the
imposition of sanctions.
-2-