Free Now Foundation v. Aragon

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: March 26, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-03523
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FREE NOW FOUNDATION, et al., No. 2:24-cv-03523-DJC-SCR 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER

14 TOMAS ARAGON, et al.,

15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiffs have filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary 18 Injunction requesting that this Court enjoin Defendant Courtney Johnson from 19 excluding Plaintiff Minor Child #1 from attending classes at Foothill Technology High 20 School. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining 21 Order is Denied. The Court also orders the Plaintiffs to file a renewed motion for 22 preliminary injunction or show cause why Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction 23 should not be denied on the same basis. 24 I. Legal Standard for Temporary Restraining Order 25 A temporary restraining order may be issued upon a showing “that immediate 26 and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse 27 party can be heard in opposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A). In determining whether 28 to issue a temporary restraining order, courts apply the factors that guide the 1 evaluation of a request for preliminary injunctive relief: (1) likelihood of success on the 2 merits; (2) irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief (3) the balance of 3 equities and (4) the public interest. See Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 4 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); see Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 5 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001) (explaining that the analysis for temporary restraining orders 6 and preliminary injunctions is “substantially identical”). 7 II. Analysis 8 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order must be denied as it does 9 not address whether Plaintiff Minor Child #1 faces irreparable harm in the absence of 10 a temporary restraining order and thus the Motion fails to establish this necessary 11 element under the Winter analysis. (See Mot. (ECF No. 18-1).) Plaintiffs’ Motion first 12 addresses whether there are “serious questions going to the merits”. (Id. at 12–19.) 13 Plaintiffs then briefly address the ”balance of the hardships” which Plaintiffs believe 14 tips in their favor. (Id. at 19.) Finally, Plaintiffs then turn to their final section entitled 15 “The Other Two Winters [sic] Factors Are Satisfied[.]” (Id.) In this section, Plaintiffs 16 state the final two factors are satisfied because “the balance of equities” tips in Plaintiff 17 Minor Child #1’s favor and because a temporary restraining order would be in the 18 public interest. (Id.) In sum, Plaintiffs’ motion addresses four factors: (1) serious 19 questions going to the merits, (2) the balance of hardships, (3) the balance of equities, 20 and (4) the public interest. 21 Plaintiffs’ Counsel appears to have misunderstood the sliding scale approach 22 and, as a result, failed to fully address the Winter factors. The sliding scale approach 23 sometimes utilized in the Ninth Circuit permits a lesser showing of one of the Winter 24 factors if there is a weaker showing of another. All. For the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 25 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011). Most commonly, this is used to reduce the 26 “likelihood of success on the merits” factor to whether there are “serious questions 27 going to the merits” where the balance of hardships tips in favor of the plaintiff. See 28 id. at 1131–32. 1 Even if the sliding scale approach applies, the Court is skeptical that there are 2 || serious questions going to the merits. See e.g., Whitlow v. California, 203 F. Supp. 3d 3 | 1079 (S.D. Cal. 2006). However, the Court need not reach this issue here as Plaintiffs 4 | have not addressed the irreparable harm factor. The sliding scale approach does not, 5 | as Plaintiffs seem to believe, remove the “irreparable harm” requirement of Winter and 6 | replace it with a “balance of the equities” test that is duplicative of the “balance of the 7 | hardship” test. 8 Plaintiffs’ failure to establish that Plaintiff Minor Child #1 will suffer irreparable 9 | harm is fatal to their Motion. Plaintiffs are required to “make a showing on all four 10 | prongs” of the Winter test to obtain preliminary injunctive relief. All. For the Wild 11 | Rockies, 632 F.3d at 1131; see Koller v. Brown, 224 F. Supp. 3d 871, 879 (N.D. Cal. 12 | 2016) (“An adequate showing of irreparable harm is the single most important 13 | prerequisite for the issuance of a [temporary restraining order].” (internal citations and 14 | quotation marks removed).) The complete failure to address one of these prongs 15 | mandates the denial of Plaintiffs’ Motion. 16 Ill. Conclusion 17 For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for 18 | Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 18) is DENIED. Additionally, within fourteen 19 | days of this order, Plaintiffs may file a renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction. 20 | Otherwise, Plaintiffs are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why Plaintiffs’ Motion for 21 | Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 18) should not also be denied on this same basis. 22 53 IT 1S SO ORDERED. 24 | Dated: _March 26, 2025 Donel J CoDbnatto Hon. Daniel alabretta 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28