Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation v. State of Utah et al

Filing 11

ORDER denying without prejudice 9 Motion for TRO. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 5/19/2013. (rlr)

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION

UTE INDIAN TRIBE OF THE UINTAH &
OURAY RESERVATION, UTAH,
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ EX
PARTE MOTION FOR TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER

vs.

THE STATE OF UTAH, DUCHESNE
COUNTY, a political subdivision of the
State of Utah, ROOSEVELT CITY, a
municipal Corporation, DUCHESNE CITY,
a Municipal Corporation, MYTON, a
Municipal Corporation, and UINTAH
COUNTY, a political subdivision of the
State of Utah,

Case No. 2:13-CV-276 TS

Defendants.

Plaintiff moves for an ex parte Temporary Restraining Order.1 Plaintiff also moves for a
Preliminary Injunction seeking the same relief.

1

Docket No. 9.
1

Rule 65(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit issuance of a
TRO on an ex parte basis “only if (A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly
show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the
adverse party can be heard in opposition; and (B) the movant’s attorney certifies in writing any
efforts made to give notice and the reasons why notice should not be required.”2
In the instant case, Plaintiffs’ Motion has not met the requirements of Rule 65(b)(1)
for issuance of an ex parte TRO. While Plaintiffs’ Motion contains a Certification of Counsel
detailing the harms Plaintiffs may suffer if relief is not granted at some point, the Certification
does not address specific reasons why notice should not be given to Defendants before issuance
of the TRO. Further, Plaintiffs’ Certification fails to detail any efforts made to give notice to the
Defendants in anticipation of this Motion being heard.
It is therefore
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Expedited Motion for Emergency Temporary Restraining
Order (Docket No. 9) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court will set a hearing on
Plaintiffs’ request for preliminary injunctive relief once the Defendants have appeared and
responded.
DATED April 19, 2013.
BY THE COURT:

_____________________________________
TED STEWART
United States District Judge

2

Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(b)(1)(a) and (b) (emphasis added).
2