Hanford Guards Union Local 21 v. Brian Vance

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: January 2, 2025
• Docket: 4:24-cv-05169
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT 3 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Jan 02, 2025 4 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 9 HANFORD GUARDS UNION, LOCAL 10 21 (“HGU” or “Union”), No. 4:24-CV-05169-SAB 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION 13 BRIAN VANCE, in his official capacity; FOR EMERGENCY TRO 14 and HANFORD MISSION 15 INTEGRATION SOLUTIONS, LLC 16 (“HMIS” or “Employer”), 17 Defendants. 18 19 Before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion for Emergency TRO, ECF No. 4, and 20 related Motion to Expedite, ECF No. 5. Plaintiff is represented by SaNni 21 Lemonidis and Jackson Millikan. Defendants are represented by John Drake. The 22 motions were considered without oral argument. 23 After reviewing the Motion, briefs, and caselaw, the Court denies Plaintiff’s 24 request for an emergency temporary restraining order. 25 MOTION STANDARD 26 A movant seeking a temporary restraining order—or preliminary 27 injunction—must satisfy the elements laid out in Winter v. Natural Resources 28 Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). See also E. Bay Sanctuary Covenant 1 v. Trump, 932 F.3d 742, 762 (9th Cir. 2018). “A preliminary injunction is a matter 2 of equitable discretion and is ‘an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded 3 upon a clear showing that a plaintiff is entitled to such relief.’” California v. Azar, 4 911 F.3d 558, 575 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Winter, 555 U.S. at 22). 5 A party can obtain a preliminary injunction—or temporary restraining 6 order—by showing its motion satisfies all four elements of the Winter test: (1) the 7 likelihood of success on the merits, (2) the party is likely to suffer irreparable harm 8 in the absence of relief; (3) the balance of equities weigh in favor of the moving 9 party; and (4) the injunction or restraining order is in the public interest. See 10 Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. 11 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EMERGENCY TRO 12 Plaintiff requests the Court issue an emergency temporary restraining order 13 against Defendants to stop them from suspending and revoking the Human 14 Reliability Program (“HRP”) certifications, issued to Plaintiff’s union members, 15 during the ongoing “employer lockout.” Plaintiff’s Collective Bargaining 16 Agreement expired on November 27, 2024, and Defendants initiated the lockout 17 absent a new agreement. 18 In reviewing the briefs, the Court finds Plaintiff has not satisfied the 19 elements laid out in Winter. As to the first element, Plaintiff is not likely to succeed 20 on the merits because Defendants have placed the HRP certifications at issue in 21 “temporary removal” status, as allowed by 10 C.F.R. § 712.19. This is not a 22 termination of the certifications. As such, Plaintiff has not shown Defendants 23 violated the union members’ Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment due process rights 24 related to their HRP certifications. 25 Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for an emergency TRO is denied. 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff's Motion for Emergency TRO, ECF No. 4, and related Motion to Expedite, ECF No. 5, are DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is hereby directed to 5|| file this Order and provide copies to counsel. DATED this 2nd day of January 2025.

8 9 10 . Sfrucleyld See 2 Stanley A. Bastian 13 Chief United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28