THE PROJECT SCHOOL v. CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS et al

Filing 25

ORDER granting 24 Motion to Dissolve Temporary Restraining Order. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 8/1/2012. (PGS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
THE PROJECT SCHOOL,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS and GREGORY )
A. BALLARD, in his official capacity as
)
Mayor of Indianapolis/Marion County,
)
Indiana,
)
)
Defendants.
)

1:12-cv-01028-SEB-DKL

ORDER DISSOLVING TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
On July 31, 2012, the Court issued its Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for
Preliminary Injunction [Docket No. 23]. By virtue of that order, we denied Plaintiff’s
request for an expedited, consolidated hearing and denied Plaintiff’s motions for
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. Now before the Court is Defendants’ Motion
to Dissolve Temporary Restraining Order [Docket No. 24], which, being duly advised in
the premises, we GRANT.
This lawsuit commenced in the Marion Superior Court [Cause No.
49D11-1207-CC-029039] before Defendants removed the action to federal court. Prior to
removal, the state court granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) in Plaintiff’s favor.
The order, issued July 24, 2012, enjoined Defendants from any activities that would have
effectively prevented Plaintiff from beginning classes at The Project School’s Indianapolis
1

location on August 6, 2012. The TRO further stated, “It is further ordered, adjudged, and
decreed that pending a hearing and determination of Plaintiff’s request for preliminary
injunction, Defendants are temporarily restrained and enjoined” from the same activities.
August 3, 2012 at 4:00 p.m. was the listed expiration date.
A party that removes its case to federal court “has a right to have its further progress
governed by the law of the latter court, and not by that of the court from which it was
removed.” Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. B’hood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers, 415
U.S. 423, 438 (1974). Once a lawsuit comes to federal court, the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure govern the mode of proceedings. Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(c). In the instant
matter, Rule 65 vested this court with discretion to grant injunctive relief or hold an
expedited hearing. We have elected to deny injunctive relief and forgo a hearing for the
reasons set forth in the order issued yesterday.
Under federal law, a TRO serves a limited purpose and “should be restricted to
serving [its] underlying purpose of preserving the status quo and preventing irreparable
harm just so long as is necessary to hold a hearing, and no longer.” Granny Goose Foods,
Inc., 415 U.S. at 439. In this lawsuit, the Court ruled that it was not necessary to hold a
hearing on the merits of injunctive relief. Thus, clearly, the interests of justice and efficiency
militate against preserving the status quo, given our determination that Mayor Ballard
acted within his lawful authority in revoking The Project School’s charter. Bearing in
mind the need to facilitate the transitions of former students, faculty, and staff, there is no
2

reason for the state court’s TRO to remain in effect.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the TRO
previously issued by the Marion Superior Court in this matter is hereby DISSOLVED.
08/01/2012
Date: _________________
_______________________________
SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

3

Copies to:
Sean Thomas Devenney
DREWRY SIMMONS VORNEHM, LLP
[e-mail]
Jayme E. Donnelson
DREWRY SIMMONS VORNEHM, LLP
[e-mail]
Amanda J. Griffith
Office of Corporation Counsel
[e-mail]
Andrew J. Mallon
DREWRY SIMMONS VORNEHM, LLP
[e-mail]
Clifford R. Whitehead
CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, CORPORATION COUNSEL
[e-mail]
Alexander Phillip Will
OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL
[e-mail]

4