Winkfield v. Childrens Hospital Oakland et al

Filing 5

ORDER DEFERRING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS 2 APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER. Responses due by 1/2/2014. Replies due by 1/3/2014. Motion Hearing set for 1/7/2014 01:00 PM before Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 12/30/2013. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/30/2013)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5

LATASHA WINKFIELD, as an
individual and as guardian ad
litem and mother of Jahi McMath,

6
7
8
9

Plaintiff,
v.
CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL & RESEARCH
CENTER AT OAKLAND; DR. DAVID
DURAND,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

No. C 13-5993 SBA
ORDER DEFERRING IN
PART AND DENYING
IN PART
PLAINTIFF’S
APPLICATION FOR A
TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER
(Docket No. 2)

Defendants.
________________________________/
On December 30, 2013, Plaintiff Latasha Winkfield moved ex

13

parte for a temporary restraining order (TRO) seeking to keep Jahi

14

McMath on cardio pulmonary support and to insert a gastric tube

15

and a tracheostomy tube to allow her to be transferred to another

16

facility.

17

Oakland and Dr. David Durand filed an opposition.

18

day, the Alameda County Superior Court entered an order extending

19

its TRO requiring Defendants to maintain the status quo of

20

treatment provided to McMath, but declining to order insertion of

21

a gastric tube or a tracheostomy tube.

Defendants Children’s Hospital & Research Center at
On the same

22

To qualify for a temporary restraining order, the moving

23

party must demonstrate “(1) a likelihood of success on the merits;

24

(2) a significant threat of irreparable injury; (3) that the

25

balance of hardships favors the applicant; and (4) whether any

26

public interest favors granting an injunction.”

27

Ashcroft, 352 F.3d 1222, 1227 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Winter v.

28

Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008).

Raich v.

1

Alternatively, a temporary restraining order could issue where

2

“the likelihood of success is such that serious questions going to

3

the merits were raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply

4

in plaintiff’s favor,” so long as the plaintiff demonstrates

5

irreparable harm and shows that the injunction is in the public

6

interest.

7

1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation and internal quotation and

8

editing marks omitted).

Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d

After considering the papers and the impact of the

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

continuation of the state court’s TRO, the Court defers

11

consideration of the application with respect to maintaining the

12

status quo of treatment provided to McMath, and DENIES Plaintiff’s

13

application with regard to insertion of a gastric tube and a

14

tracheostomy tube.

15

preliminary injunction at a hearing before Judge Armstrong on

16

January 7, 2014 at 1:00 PM.

17

than January 2, 2014 at 12:00 PM.

18

no later than January 3, 2014 at 5:00 PM.

19

reply no later than January 6, 2014 at 9:00 AM.

20

The Court will consider a motion for

Plaintiff may file a brief no later
Defendants may file a response
Plaintiff may file a

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22
23

Dated:

12/30/2013

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
2