Arizona Recovery Housing Association v. Arizona Department of Health Services

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: May 14, 2020
• Docket: 2:20-cv-00893
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Arizona Recovery Housing Association, No. CV-20-00893-PHX-JAT

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Arizona Department of Health Services, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s joint motion for a temporary restraining order 16 (“TRO”) and preliminary injunction (“PI”). The standard for obtaining a TRO and a PI is 17 identical. Synopsys, Inc. v. AzurEngine Techs., Inc., 401 F. Supp. 3d 1068, 1072 (S.D. Cal. 18 2019). However, they serve different purposes. W. Watersheds Project v. Bernhardt, 391 19 F. Supp. 3d 1002, 1008 (D. Or. 2019). Specifically, 20 “[A] temporary restraining order serves a purpose different from that of a preliminary injunction. ‘The purpose of a temporary restraining order is to 21 preserve an existing situation in status quo until the court has an opportunity to pass upon the merits of the demand for a preliminary injunction.’” Garcia 22 v. Yonkers Sch. Dist., 561 F.3d 97, 107 (2d Cir. 2009) (quoting Pan Am. World Airways, Inc. v. Flight Eng’rs’ Int’l Ass’n, PAA Chapter, 306 F.2d 23 840, 842-43 (2d Cir. 1962) ); see also Procter & Gamble Co. v. Bankers Tr. Co., 78 F.3d 219, 226 (6th Cir. 1996) (“[T]he purpose of a TRO under Rule 24 65 is to preserve the status quo so that a reasoned resolution of a dispute may be had.”); Bronco Wine Co. v. U.S. Dep't of Treasury, 997 F. Supp. 1309, 25 1313 (E.D. Cal. 1996) (“The purpose of a TRO is to preserve the status quo pending a full hearing on a preliminary injunction.”). 26 W. Watersheds Project, 391 F. Supp. 3d at 1008–09. Additionally, while a TRO in some 27 circumstances can be issued without notice, a PI cannot. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65; see also 28 Synopysys, Inc. 401 F. Supp. 3d at 1072 (“the primary difference [between a TRO and a PI 1 is] duration: preliminary injunctions remain in force throughout the litigation, while TROs, 2 which are traditionally entered on an ex parte basis, are limited to 28 days. See Fed. R. Civ. 3 Pro. 65(b)(2).”). 4 Here, Plaintiff conflated the TRO and PI request into a single document without 5 specifying the relief is seeks. Plaintiff did not indicate it was seeking the TRO on an ex 6 parte basis, but Plaintiff did not endorse Defendants on the certificate of service. (Doc. 8 7 at 18). Further, Plaintiff did not indicate it was seeking two separate remedies: a TRO for 8 a limited period of time, to be followed by a PI after a hearing. (Doc. 8). Instead, Plaintiff 9 merely said “oral argument requested.” (Doc. 8 at 1). Plaintiff’s proposed form of order 10 only adds to the confusion. (Doc. 8-2). The proposed form of Order appears to seek only 11 the relief of a TRO, meaning Plaintiff has failed to submit a proposed form of Order for 12 the PI portion of the motion. (Id.). Further, the proposed form of Order makes no mention 13 of whether Plaintiff anticipates giving Defendants notice, or the Court finding cause for 14 not giving notice. (Id.). Most importantly, however, the Court should be able to determine 15 the relief sought from the motion itself. 16 To allow the Court to manage its calendar, and to give Defendants fair notice of 17 what remedies the Court is entertaining at any particular hearing, the currently pending 18 joint motion for a TRO and PI will be denied, without prejudice. If Plaintiff in fact seeks 19 a TRO immediately, Plaintiff must file a motion for a TRO. Plaintiff must indicate whether 20 the TRO is being sought on an ex parte basis, and if so, must show why a TRO without 21 notice is warranted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1). Further, Plaintiff must 22 explain why, if the emergency relief of a TRO is necessary, it took Plaintiff six days from 23 when the case was filed to seek the TRO. See generally Oakland Tribune, Inc. v. Chronicle 24 Pub. Co. 762 F.2d 1374, 1377 (9th Cir. 1985). 25 Regardless of whether Plaintiff files a motion for a TRO, if Plaintiff seeks a 26 preliminary injunction that would be in place for the duration of this litigation, Plaintiff 27 must file a motion specifically seeking a preliminary injunction. Notice of this PI motion 28 must be given to Defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(1). The Court will not undertake to 1|| hold a hearing on any request for a PI until Plaintiff files with the Court proof that 2|| Defendants have been given notice of the motion. Further, any motion for a PI must 3 || indicate whether Plaintiff seeks an evidentiary hearing on the motion. 4 Finally, in any re-filed request for a TRO or PI Plaintiff must indicate the amount of the bond it will post if a TRO or PI is granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c) (“The court || may issue a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order only if the movant gives 7 || security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained 8 || by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.”) (emphasis added). The Court notes that the proposed form of order (Doc. 8-2) seeks to have the bond waived for a TRO, but the motion itself makes no argument why such a waiver would be 11 || appropriate. Further, neither the motion nor the proposed order makes reference to a bond for a PI. While Plaintiff may argue to have the bond waived, Plaintiff must nonetheless 13 || propose a bond amount in the event the Court rejects that argument. 14 Based on the foregoing, 15 IT IS ORDERED that the motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (Doc. 8) is denied without prejudice. 17 Dated this 14th day of May, 2020. 18 19 i C 20 James A. Teilborg 21 Senior United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-