Dixon et al v. Kurta et al

Filing 17

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER TO BE ISSUED WITHOUT NOTICE PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE 65" (Doc. 9) AND GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (Doc. 10). Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (MVer)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ERVIN DIXON and ELSA DIXON, Plaintiffs, vs. Case No. 17-10195 THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE, and JAMES CONNER, STEPHANIE CONNER, DENNIS KURTA, JUDITH KURTA, HON. AVERN COHN Defendants. _________________________________/ ORDER DENYING “PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER TO BE ISSUED WITHOUT NOTICE PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE 65" (Doc. 9) AND GRANTING “PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT” (Doc. 10) This is a civil rights case. Plaintiffs claim that defendants, the City of Roseville and employees, have subjected them to harassment due to their race. Plaintiffs have filed a “Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order to Be Issued Without Notice Pursuant to Federal Rule 65" essentially seeking a restraining order to cease the alleged harassment. (Doc. 9). Defendants oppose the motion, contending that plaintiffs have not met the standard for a restraining order. (Doc. 12) Plaintiffs also filed a “Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint” (Doc. 10). Defendants oppose the motion on the grounds amendment would be futile. (Doc. 11). On June 5, 2017 the Court held a status conference with the parties at which it discussed the pending motions. As stated at the conference, plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order is DENIED. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65. Plaintiffs’ motion to amend is GRANTED. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. SO ORDERED. S/Avern Cohn AVERN COHN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: June 5, 2017 Detroit, Michigan 2

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?