Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-04753/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-04753-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 20:1401 Education: Handicapped Child 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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

D.L., a minor by and through his parents, K.L. 

and I.L, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

SHORELINE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, 

 Defendant. 

Case No: C 09-4753 SBA 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX 

PARTE APPLICATION FOR A 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING 

ORDER AND GRANTING REQUEST 

FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

On October 6, 2009, Plaintiff D.L., a minor, by and through his parents K.L. and I.L. 

(Parents), filed a Complaint under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 

U.S.C. § 1400, et. seq., against Defendant Shoreline Unified School District (District). The 

instant action arises from a dispute over an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) prepared for 

the minor by the District, pursuant to the IDEA, in 2005. Dissatisfied with the IEP, Parents 

enrolled the minor at a private school, Marin Waldorf School (Marin Waldorf), in September 

2003. Though the minor attended Marin Waldorf from 2003 to 2009, the school refused to 

reenroll the minor for the 2009-2010 school year. 

In the meantime, Parents filed for a due process hearing, claiming that the District failed 

to provide the minor with a free and appropriate education (FAPE), as required by the IDEA. 

On August 3, 2009, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) who presided over the hearing 

concluded that the IEP was defective and that the District had failed to provide the minor with 

a FAPE. However, the ALJ allegedly did not issue a placement order, and instead, ordered a 

series of IEP meetings. Because of the lack of a placement order by the ALJ, Parents enrolled 

the minor at STAR Academy, where they have had to personally pay for their child’s tuition 

and travel expenses. Plaintiff thus filed this lawsuit to seek judicial review of the ALJ’s ruling. 

Case 4:09-cv-04753-DMR Document 24 Filed 03/17/10 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

On March 1, 2010, Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining 

Order to Enforce Stay Put During Pendency of Litigation (Application for TRO). (Docket 19.) 

In the Memorandum of Points and Authorities submitted in support of his Application for TRO 

(Docket 20), Plaintiff states that “[he] is seeking a temporary restraining order (‘TRO’) 

ordering Defendant school district to pay for D.L.’s placement at STAR Academy from the 

date of the administrative decision on 8/3/09 until a final resolution of this matter.” (Docket 20 

at 4.)1

 

A TRO under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 is an extraordinary remedy that is 

generally reserved for emergency situations in which a party may suffer immediate irreparable 

harm. See Whirlpool Corp. v. Marshall, 445 U.S. 1, 20 n.33 (1980) (temporary restraining 

orders used for “emergency situations”); c.f., Oakland Tribune, Inc. v. Chronicle Pub. Co., 762 

F.2d 1374, 1377 (9th Cir. 1985) (delay in seeking injunctive weighs against a finding of 

urgency). No such emergency is evident in this action. Plaintiff has been aware of the ALJ’s 

ruling and the cost associated with placement at STAR Academy since August 2009. Yet, 

Plaintiff waited for months to bring the instant Application for TRO to immediately require the 

District to pay for his tuition and travel expenses. Given such delay, the Court, in its 

discretion, concludes that Plaintiff has not demonstrated that a sufficient exigency exists to 

justify imposition of a TRO. Rather, this matter is more appropriately heard in the context of 

Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction. Accordingly, 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application for Temporary 

Restraining Order to Enforce Stay Put During Pendency of Litigation is DENIED. Plaintiff’s 

request for an order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue is 

GRANTED. By no later than March 23, 2010, Defendant shall file its response to Plaintiff’s 

 1 Plaintiff’s request is inherently inconsistent. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

65(b)(2), the maximum duration of a TRO is 14 days. In contrast, a preliminary injunction 

“remains in effect until final resolution of a case.” Schwarzer, Tashima & Wagstaffe, 

Fed.Civ.P. Before Trial § 13.190.10 at 13-92 (TRG 2008). In light of Plaintiff’s request for the 

imposition of an injunction until “final resolution of this matter,” it is apparent that Plaintiff 

incorrectly styled her request as an Application for TRO as opposed to a motion for 

preliminary injunction. 

Case 4:09-cv-04753-DMR Document 24 Filed 03/17/10 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

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 

request for a preliminary injunction. The failure to file a timely response may be construed by 

the Court as a consent to the imposition of the proposed preliminary injunction. Plaintiff’s 

reply in support of its request for preliminary injunction shall be filed by no later than March 

30, 2010. The hearing on the motion will take place on April 20, 2010 at 1:00 p.m. in 

Courtroom 1 of the United States District Court, 1301 Clay St., Oakland, California. The 

parties are advised that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b), the Court may, in its 

discretion, adjudicate the motion for preliminary injunction without oral argument. The parties 

are advised to check the Court’s website to determine whether an appearance on the motion is 

required. This Order terminates Docket No. 19. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 16, 2010 _______________________________ 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:09-cv-04753-DMR Document 24 Filed 03/17/10 Page 3 of 3