Faus Signature Hospitality LLC, et al. v. Kristi Noem, et al.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: February 4, 2026
• Docket: 5:26-cv-00573
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 FAUS SIGNATURE HOSPITALITY LLC, Case No. 26-cv-00573-NW et al., 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING IN PART EX 9 PARTE APPLICATION FOR A TRO; v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 10 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION KRISTI NOEM, et al., SHOULD NOT ISSUE 11 Defendants. Re: ECF No. 7 12 13 Before the Court is Plaintiffs Faus Signature Hospitality LLC and Ricard Faus Rodriguez’s 14 (collectively “Plaintiffs”) Ex Parte Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order filed on January 30, 15 2026. ECF No. 7. For the reasons stated below, during the February 4, 2026 hearing, the 16 Court GRANTED IN PART Plaintiffs’ motion and issued narrow relief to ensure no irreparable 17 harm occurred as the underlying facts develop. As stated on the record and further explained in 18 the memorandum below, the Government and its agents are ENJOINED from detaining Mr. 19 Faus Rodriguez for any reason related to his immigration status through February 17, 2026. 20 Defendants are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing, on or before Wednesday, February 21 11, 2026, why a preliminary injunction should not issue. 22 Before turning to the merits, the Court reiterates its need to hear from Defendants. The 23 Court understands that Plaintiffs emailed a copy of the instant motion to email addresses believed 24 to belong to attorneys from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California on 25 January 29, 2026. Plaintiffs must continue to make all reasonable effort to ensure Defendants 26 receive notice of this action, the instant motion, and the limited relief provided by this Order.1 27 1 Plaintiffs shall file a report with the Court by noon on Thursday, February 6, that details the 2 additional actions Plaintiffs have taken to ensure Defendants are on notice and any responses (or 3 lack thereof) from Defendants. The Court assumes that Plaintiffs’ best efforts to effectuate service 4 by the end of the week will be successful and sets forth the following schedule: 5 • Defendants shall file an opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion (where not otherwise 6 mooted) and a response to the order to show cause by 5 p.m. PT on February 11, 7 2026. 8 • Plaintiffs shall file a reply by 5 p.m. PT on February 13, 2026. 9 • The Court will hold a further hearing on the motion at 9:00 a.m. on February 17, 10 2026, on Zoom. 11 • Prior to the scheduled hearing, the parties shall meet and confer to discuss whether 12 they may be able to reach any agreements regarding this case, including conditions 13 that will either allow Plaintiffs to withdraw their motion, or that propose a different 14 briefing or hearing schedule. 15 I. BACKGROUND 16 Mr. Faus Rodriguez lawfully entered the United State on October 8, 2024, on an E-2 visa. 17 On July 28, 2025, the day upon which Mr. Faus Rodriguez’s lawful status in the U.S. expired, 18 Faus Signature Hospitality filed a Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, seeking O-1A 19 classification for Mr. Faus Rodriguez pursuant to INA § 101(a)(15)(O). Following a Request for 20 Evidence (RFE) from the USCIS identifying primary areas of concern, and Plaintiffs subsequent 21 “comprehensive rebuttal,” USCIS denied Plaintiffs’ O-1A petition on November 18, 2025. Id. 22 ¶ 33. USCIS’s decision extinguished any lawful status Mr. Faus Rodriguez may have otherwise 23 had; from that point forward, Mr. Faus Rodriguez has not had lawful status to be in the United 24 States. See ECF No. 10 at 26. 25 Sometime thereafter, USCIS “issued a biometrics appointment notice [to Mr. Faus 26 Rodriguez] referencing Form I-862 (Notice to Appear) scheduled for February 5, 2026, at the San 27 1 Jose USCIS Field Office.” Mot., ECF No. 7 at 4. Most recently on February 1, 2026, Mr. Faus 2 Rodriguez received a Notice to Appear before an immigration judge on March 27, 2026, to “show 3 why [he] should not be removed from the United States” for remaining in the U.S. unlawfully. 4 ECF No. 10 at 27. An NTA is typically the first step the Government takes when initiating 5 removal proceedings. See Samayoa-Martinez v. Holder, 558 F.3d 897, 901 (9th Cir. 2009). 6 Accordingly, Plaintiffs fear that ICE may arrest and detain Mr. Faus Rodriguez at the scheduled 7 USCIS appointment on February 5. Id. Plaintiffs ask the Court to enjoin Defendants from (1) 8 enforcing the denial of Mr. Faus Rodriguez’s Form I-129 O-1A Petition and (2) from arresting, 9 detaining, or initiating removal proceedings against Mr. Faus Rodriguez in connection with a 10 biometrics appointment. 11 Plaintiffs’ complaint was filed before they received notice of the February 5, 2026 12 appointment, and it alleges only that USCIS’s rejection of the O-1A visa application was arbitrary 13 and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”). Upon receipt of the 14 appointment notice, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion because it was only at that time that 15 Plaintiffs believed detention was imminent. 16 The Court understands that Plaintiffs attempted to effectuate service of the complaint and 17 notify Defendants of the TRO Motion. There’s no indication that Plaintiffs’ attempts have been 18 successful. The Court held an ex parte hearing on February 4, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. ET. 19 II. DISCUSSION 20 The sole purpose of a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) is to maintain the status quo 21 until the hearing on the application for a preliminary injunction. Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. 22 Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers, 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974). The standard for 23 issuing a TRO is identical to the standard for issuing a preliminary injunction. Lockheed Missile 24 & Space Co. v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 887 F. Supp. 1320, 1323 (N.D. Cal. 1995).2 As a result, to 25 prevail on a TRO, Plaintiffs must establish (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (2) 26 2 An ex parte TRO further requires Plaintiffs to comply with Rule 65(b)(1)(a) by providing (1) an 27 affidavit demonstrating immediate injury before the adverse party can be heard and (2) a ] a significant risk of irreparable harm if the injunction 1s withheld, (3) a favorable balance of 2 || hardships, and (4) a fit (or lack of friction) between the injunction and the public interest. Winter, 3 555 U.S. at 20. When the government is a party, the factors regarding public interest and equities 4 || merge. Drakes Bay Oyster Co. v. Jewell, 747 F.3d 1073, 1092 (9th Cir. 2014). 5 The Court may apply a “sliding scale” standard, “allowing a stronger showing of one 6 || element to offset a weaker showing of another.” Doe v. Snyder, 28 F 4th 103, 111 (9th Cir. 2022) 7 || (citing Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (2011)). Under this 8 approach, “serious questions going to the merits” and a hardship balance that “tips sharply toward 9 || the plaintiff can support issuance of an injunction.” Alliance for the Wild Rockies, 632 F.3d at 10 1131; see also N_D. v. Reykdal, 102 F.4th 982, 992 (9th Cir. 2024). A “serious question” is one 11 that “cannot be resolved one way or the other at the hearing on the injunction because [it requires] 12 more deliberative investigation.” Assurance Wireless USA, L.P. v. Reynolds, 100 F.4th 1024, 13 1031 (9th Cir. 2024). 14 Plaintiffs have demonstrated that there are serious questions going to the merits of the 3 15 || underlying APA claim animating the complaint. That, alongside the evidence that Mr. Faus a 16 || Rodriguez’s liberty interests may be irreparably injured, persuades the Court that the sliding scale 17 || used when granting equitable relief favors issuance of a narrow TRO. Accordingly, the Zz 18 Government and its agents are ENJOINED from detaining Mr. Faus Rodriguez for any 19 || reason related to his immigration status through February 17, 2026. Without the benefit of 20 || Defendants’ position on Plaintiffs’ claim and motion, the Court finds it prudent to maintain the 21 status quo while it waits to hear from Defendants. 22 Further, Defendants are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing, on or before 23 Wednesday, February 11, 2026, why a preliminary injunction should not issue. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 || Dated: February 4, 2026 / 2 . 26 Noél Wise 27 United States District Judge 28