Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00930/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00930-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 891
Nature of Suit: Agricultural Acts
Cause of Action: 07:499 Agricultural Commodities Act

---

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

08cv930

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAMMY’S PRODUCE, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

REY & REY PRODUCE, INC., and

MANUEL REYNOSO,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 08cv930 L(WMc)

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE APPLICATION FOR

TRO WITHOUT NOTICE [doc. #3]

and STRIKING MOTION FOR

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [doc.

#4]

Plaintiff Sammy’s Produce Inc. (“Sammy’s”) filed an unverified Complaint for violations

of the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (“PACA”), 7 U.S.C. § 499e(c)(2), along with a

request for a temporary restraining order without notice to defendants Rey & Rey Produce, Inc.

and Manuel Reynoso. 

As noted, plaintiff seeks a TRO without notice to defendants. Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 65(b) specifies the conditions for an ex parte temporary restraining order: 

(1) Issuing Without Notice. The court may issue a temporary restraining order

without written or oral notice to the adverse party or its attorney only if:

(A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that

immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant

before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and

(B) the movant's attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice

and the reasons why it should not be required.

Case 3:08-cv-00930-L-WMC Document 5 Filed 05/28/08 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 08cv930

FED.R.CIV.P. 65(b).

Here, plaintiff’s counsel has not provided an affidavit and certification as required under

the Rule 65(b). Counsel has not provided any statement or discussion that would support the

issuance of a TRO without notice. Therefore, the Court will deny without prejudice the TRO

without notice. If plaintiff again seeks the issuance of a TRO without notice, it shall comply

fully with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b). If plaintiff seeks the issuance of a TRO with

notice to defendants, it shall provide an affidavit with its application attesting to the notice and

means of notice that has been provided to defendants. 

Plaintiff prematurely filed a separate motion for preliminary injunction and filed the

motion without obtaining a hearing date for the motion. Because the Court has denied the

application for TRO without notice, the Court will strike from the record plaintiff’s motion for

preliminary injunction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 28, 2008

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. WILLIAM McCURINE, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:08-cv-00930-L-WMC Document 5 Filed 05/28/08 Page 2 of 2