U.S. Public v. People in US

Opinion

U.S. PUBLIC, et al., Case No. 24-cv-0369-BAS-VET

Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR v. EX PARTE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (ECF No. 7) PEOPLE IN U.S., et al.,

Defendants. Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Sandara Jenkins and Steven Cross, on behalf of the U.S. Public, Request for a Temporary Restraining Order. (ECF No. 7.) Because the defendants in this case have not yet been served, this request is made ex parte. Plaintiffs move to stop the eviction of a property located at 1050 Essex Street, San Diego, California claiming “conspiracy, contract fraud under treason, blackmail, coercion, etc.” (Id.) For a court to grant a TRO, the moving party must show: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm to the moving party in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in favor of the moving party; and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Generally, a TRO is “an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Id. at 22. For a TRO granted ex parte, or without notice to the opposing party, the burden is even higher and “courts have recognized very few circumstances justifying the issuance of an ex parte TRO.” Reno Air Racing Ass’n. v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2006). Here Plaintiffs request the TRO to prevent an eviction from occurring citing “conspiracy, contract fraud under treason, blackmail, coercion, etc.” (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiffs do not offer any facts as to why the eviction amounts to a conspiracy, how contract fraud occurred, or how blackmail or coercion may be claimed. Nor do Plaintiffs offer a legal basis for stopping the eviction. Additionally, Plaintiffs do not provide a reason for why this Court should grant a TRO against Defendants without due notice to Defendants, the entirety of the U.S. population, to appear and defend against this action Plaintiffs’ allegations. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden in requesting this Court grant a TRO and the request is hereby DENIED. /) DATED: April 8, 2024 (Yin A (Lyphan United States District Judge ~_9.