VICKY et al v. Stacker

Filing 9

ORDER: Denying Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order 7 . See, formal Order. Signed on 6/13/2017 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (rdr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
EUGENE DIVISION

VICKY, et al.,

6: 17-cv-00776-AA
Plaintiffs,

ORDER

v.

PAUL HOWARD STACKER,
Defendant.

AIKEN, District Judge.
Plaintiffs seek a tempora1y restraining order ("TRO") prohibiting defendant Paul Stacker
from transferring certain properties and assets which may be involved in his marital dissolution
from Christine Stacker. Plaintiffs also request that Christine Stacker, who is notably not a named
defendant in the present action, be restrained from encumbering, disposing of, dissipating, or
changing the title or character of any real property, bank, credit union, or brokerage accounts, or
trust property in which she and defendant have a joint interest, except under certain conditions.
Pl. Unopposed Mot. for Temporary Restraining Order on Transfer of Assets, 2. For the reasons
set forth below, plaintiffs' Motion is denied.

Page I - ORDER

The same general legal standards govern temporary restraining orders and preliminary
injunctions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65; New Motor Vehicle Bd of Cal. v. Orrin W Fox Co., 434 U.S.
1345, 1347 n.2 (1977). A plaintiff seeking such relief must establish (1) a likelihood of success
on the merits; (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) the
balance of equities tips in the plaintiffs favor; and (4) a preliminary injunction is in the public
interest. Winter v. Nat 'l Resources Def Council, 555 US. 7, 21 (2008). A court may not enter a
preliminary injunction without first affording the adverse paiiy notice and an opportunity to be
heard. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(1)(2); People of State of Cal. ex rel. Van De Kamp v. Tahoe Regional
Planning Agency, 766 F.2d 1319, 1322 (9th Cir. 1985). By contrast, an emergency temporary
restraining order may be entered without notice. See Fed R. Civ. P. 65(b)(l)(A) (restricting
availability of ex parte temporary restraining orders to situations in which "immediate and
irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard
in opposition.")
A temporary restraining order is not justified here for two reasons. First, there are no
allegations in the petition or motion showing imminence of irreparable injury or loss. No
affidavits or exhibits have been introduced showing that there is any likelihood that any of
defendant's property will be transferred or otherwise encumbered before the conclusion of this
case. Interestingly, the plaintiffs represent that defendant is unopposed to the property being
enjoined. 1 This only heightens the Court's skepticism that a TRO is necessary in this case. If
defendant also desires to ensure the preservation of certain financial- and property-related
conditions which he already controls, then, presumably, there is no danger of him taking any
adverse actions regarding that property.

1

There are no representations as to whether Christine Stacker has also stipulated to such an order.

Page 2 - ORDER

Second, it is clear that a temporary restraining order under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure is an improper vehicle for the relief sought by the parties. The pmiies request that the
Court restrain defendant and a third party from transferring any interest that he has in any real
property or in any bank or brokerage account until this matter is concluded or upon further comi
order. Axiomatically, a temporary restraining order expires fourteen days from entry into the
record. See Fed R. Civ. P. 65(b)(2). Plaintiffs cite no authority for extending a TRO beyond its
prescribed limitation, nor do they request an order to show cause why a preliminary injunction
should not issue. The pmiies may refile the request as an adequately supported motion for
preliminary injunction, requesting the injunctive relief sought here or enter into another private
stipulation which they may find helpful.
CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order on Transfer of Assets (doc. 7) is
DENIED. The parties are granted leave to refile a motion for a preliminary injunction pursuant
to Fed R. Civ. P. 65.

It is so ORDERED and DATED this

10:,~

ANNL.AIKEN
U.S. District Judge

Page 3 - ORDER

day of June 2017.