Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-00051/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-00051-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN LABRUCE KING,

Plaintiff,

vs.

HUCK HENSLEY et al.,

Defendant(s).

Case No.: 13-CV-00051 YGR

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE APPLICATION 

FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

Plaintiff John Labruce King has filed an Ex Parte Application for T.R.O. & Complaint for 

A.D.A. to prevent an eviction from taking place. Plaintiff alleges that he was provided 60 days notice 

to move out of commercial property, which he uses as an office and part-time residence. Plaintiff 

wishes to remain in his office and requests that this Court issue a temporary restraining order to 

prevent eviction. Other than alleging that he was provided 60 days notice to move by December 31, 

2012, there is no indication of when the eviction will take place absent an injunction. 

For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application for a 

Temporary Restraining Order. 

Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that actual notice must be given to the 

opposing party of the intention to seek a TRO, the date and time for the hearing and the nature of the 

relief requested. Unless notice is provided, the moving party must provide a certified showing of 

extraordinary circumstances why such notice could not have been given. Reno Air Racing Ass’n, Inc. 

v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1131-32 (9th Cir. 2006). Here, the Court has not been provided with any 

declaration showing why such notice could not have been given. Additionally, there is no indication 

of when the eviction will take place so as to justify the emergency relief requested. Further, this is a 

Case 4:13-cv-00051-YGR Document 5 Filed 01/04/13 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

commercial property and there has been no showing that monetary damages are an inadequate 

remedy. A TRO is a drastic remedy and accordingly can only be given under proper circumstances. 

Therefore, the request is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: ______________________________________ 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:13-cv-00051-YGR Document 5 Filed 01/04/13 Page 2 of 2