Doria v. Sunrun Incorporated

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: November 19, 2019
• Docket: 2:19-cv-05643
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

9 Daniel T Doria, No. CV-19-05643-PHX-DJH

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Sunrun Inc.,

13 Defendant. 14 15 This matter is before the Court on an Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining 16 Order filed by Plaintiff who is appearing pro se. (Doc. 2). Unlike a preliminary injunction 17 filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a), a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) may be entered 18 “without written or oral notice to the adverse party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). A TRO may 19 issue ex parte if: “(A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that 20 immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the 21 adverse party can be heard in opposition”; and (B) the movant “certifies in writing any 22 efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 65(b). 24 To the extent Plaintiff seeks a TRO without notice, he has not shown that he will 25 suffer irreparable injury before Defendants can be heard in opposition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 65(b)(1). Because the request for a TRO fails to comply with Rule 65(b)(1), the Court, in 27 its discretion, will deny the portion of the Motion that seeks a TRO. See LRCiv. 65.1; see 28 also Am. Can Co. v. Mansukhani, 742 F.2d 314, 321 (7th Cir. 1984) (district court abused || its discretion in granting ex parte temporary restraining order “when there was no valid 2|| reason for proceeding ex parte and by disregarding the strict procedural requirements of 3|| Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b) for the issuance of such ex parte orders”); see also Reno Air Racing Assoc., Inc. v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2006) (“[C]ourts have recognized || very few circumstances justifying the issuance of an ex parte TRO”). The Court will, || therefore, treat the request for TRO as a motion for preliminary injunction. 7 Accordingly, 8 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion for TRO (Doc. 2) is 9|| denied. The Court construes the request for a TRO as a Motion for preliminary injunction, 10 || and Defendant shall file a Response to that Motion by the deadline established in the Local 11} Rules. 12 Dated this 19th day of November, 2019. 13 14 fe — □□ 15 norable'Diang/4. Hurfetewa 16 United States District Fudge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-