Marin Alliance for Medical Marijuana et al v. Holder et al
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6 MARIN ALLIANCE FOR MEDICAL
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
Case No: C 11-5349 SBA
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
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
confer regarding a briefing schedule on Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. Dkt.
20. On November 11, 2011, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and amended motion for
TRO and preliminary injunction. Dkt. 21, 23. Defendants filed their opposition to
Plaintiffs’ amended motion for TRO on November 15, 2011. Dkt. 31.
Given the exigent circumstances alleged by Plaintiffs, the Court deems the motion
for TRO fully briefed.1 In addition, given the briefs submitted, a reply brief is unnecessary
for the Court to render an informed decision on the TRO request. As such, the parties may
not submit any additional memoranda or other filings in connection with Plaintiff’s motion
for TRO. Any papers filed in contravention of this Order will be stricken by the Court.
Pursuant to the Civil Local Rule 7-1(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b), the
Court may resolve the motion without a hearing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 16, 2011
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge
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.
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?