South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. California
DecidedMay 18, 2020
Docket3:20-cv-00865
StatusUnknown

This text of South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom (South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, (S.D. Cal. 2020).

Opinion

5 6

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

10 SOUTH BAY UNITED Case No. 20-cv-865-BAS-AHG PENTECOSTAL CHURCH, et al., 11 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ Plaintiffs, EX PARTE MOTION FOR AN 12 INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL v. 13 [ECF No. 36] GAVIN NEWSOM, in his official 14 capacity as the Governor of California, et al., 15 Defendants. 16

17 Plaintiffs South Bay United Pentecostal Church and Bishop Arthur Hodges III 18 filed a motion for temporary restraining order. (ECF No. 12.) On May 15, 2020, the 19 Court held a telephonic hearing on the motion and denied the motion. (ECF No. 32, 20 38 (transcript of hearing).) That same day, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. 21 Plaintiffs also filed an ex parte motion seeking an injunction pending the appeal. 22 (ECF No. 36.) 23 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(a)(1) provides that “[a] party must 24 ordinarily move first in the district court for . . . (C) an order . . . granting an injunction 25 while an appeal is pending.” Fed. R. App. Proc. 8(a)(1). Federal Rule of Civil 26 Procedure 62(d) provides that “[w]hile an appeal is pending from an interlocutory 27 order or final judgment that grants, dissolves, or denies an injunction, the court may | ||secure the opposing party’s rights.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(d). The standard for granting 2 ||an injunction pending appeal is generally the same as the standard for granting a 3 || preliminary injunction. Humane Soc’y of U.S. v. Gutierrez, 523 F.3d 990, 991 (9th 4 || Cir. 2008). 5 Having reviewed Plaintiffs’ arguments, the Court DENIES the instant Motion 6 ||for the same reasons stated on the record at the telephonic hearing on Plaintiffs’ 7 ||motion for temporary restraining order. (See ECF No. 38.) 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 || DATED: May 18, 2020 / . 10 (Yin 4 (Bashan. 6 11 Usited Viates District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Humane Society of the United States v. Gutierrez
523 F.3d 990 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/south-bay-united-pentecostal-church-v-newsom-casd-2020.