Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-03797/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-03797-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LESLEE A. NELSON, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

RAYAH LEVY, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C-16-3797 MMC

ORDER DENYING RENEWED EX PARTE

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER; DENYING

ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST FOR

GENERAL DUTY JUDGE TO HEAR

RENEWED EX PARTE MOTION FOR

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

Before the Court are plaintiffs’ “Renewed Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining

Order,” filed July 11, 2016, and plaintiffs’ “Administrative Request for General Duty Judge

to Hear Plaintiffs’ Renewed Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order,” filed July

11, 2016. Having read and considered plaintiffs’ moving papers, the Court hereby rules as

follows.

By order filed July 8, 2016, the Court denied plaintiffs’ “Ex Parte Motion for

Temporary Restraining Order,” filed July 6, 2016, on the ground that plaintiffs had “not

made a sufficient showing as to their entitlement to [a temporary restraining order] without

notice to defendants.” (See Order at 2:3.) Plaintiffs have renewed their motion, with the

exception that they now state they will serve defendants if the Court agrees to set the

Case 3:16-cv-03797-LB Document 19 Filed 07/11/16 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

matter for hearing on Thursday, July 14, 2016. (See Def.’s Administrative Motion at 5:4-6.) 

Plaintiffs’ renewed motion fails for the same reason set forth in the Court’s prior order,

specifically, their failure to provide the requisite notice to defendants.

Accordingly, plaintiffs’ renewed motion and administrative motion are hereby

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 11, 2016 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-03797-LB Document 19 Filed 07/11/16 Page 2 of 2