Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-00864/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-00864-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 12:635 Breach of Insurance Contract

---

1

Case No.: 15-cv-00864-LHK

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO 

SHOW CAUSE

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MAUREEN KILLORAN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, 

INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.:15-CV-00864-LHK 

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE 

APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY 

RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER 

TO SHOW CAUSE

Re: Dkt. No. 1

On February 25, 2015, Plaintiffs Maureen Killoran and David Killoran (collectively, 

“Plaintiffs”) filed the instant ex parte application for a temporary restraining order and order to 

show cause. (“Mot.”), ECF No. 1. Counsel for Defendants filed a declaration in opposition to 

Plaintiffs’ motion on February 26, 2015. ECF No. 11. Plaintiffs filed a reply that same day. ECF 

No. 12. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the relevant law, and the record in this 

case, the Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiffs’ ex parte application for a temporary 

restraining order and order to show cause. 

I. LEGAL STANDARD

The standard for issuing a temporary restraining order is identical to the standard for 

Case 5:15-cv-00864-LHK Document 14 Filed 02/27/15 Page 1 of 5
2

Case No.: 15-cv-00864-LHK

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO 

SHOW CAUSE

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

issuing a preliminary injunction. Brown Jordan Int’l, Inc. v. Mind's Eye Interiors, Inc., 236 F.

Supp. 2d 1152, 1154 (D. Haw. 2002); Lockheed Missile & Space Co., Inc. v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 

887 F. Supp. 1320, 1323 (N.D. Cal. 1995). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must 

establish that he [or she] is likely to succeed on the merits, that he [or she] is likely to suffer 

irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his [or her] 

favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 

555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (emphasis added). The party seeking the injunction bears the burden of 

proving these elements. Klein v. City of San Clemente, 584 F.3d 1196, 1201 (9th Cir. 2009). “A 

preliminary injunction is ‘an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be granted 

unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.’” Lopez v. Brewer, 680 

F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted) (emphasis in original).

II. DISCUSSION

Here, the Court concludes that it would be inappropriate to grant Plaintiffs’ ex parte 

application for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) for both procedural and substantive reasons. 

As discussed below, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to comply with the requirements of 

the District’s civil local rules, and that Plaintiffs have failed to make a clear showing that 

injunctive relief is appropriate here. 

First, Plaintiffs have failed to comply with Civil Local Rule 65-1(a)(1), which requires that 

an “ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order must be accompanied by: (1) A copy of the 

complaint . . . .” The Court has reviewed the docket and found no complaint or similar pleading. 

As another court in this District has explained, “the initial presence of [a complaint] is the 

traditional precursor to a TRO application and has been considered a condition precedent to 

seeking such an order.” Herguan Univ. v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, No. 12-CV4364-EJD, 2012 WL 3627862, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2012) (citing Stewart v. United States 

I.N.S., 762 F.2d 193, 198 (2d Cir. 1985); Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994)). 

Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with Civil Local Rule 65-1(a)(1) is sufficient grounds for denial of 

Case 5:15-cv-00864-LHK Document 14 Filed 02/27/15 Page 2 of 5
3

Case No.: 15-cv-00864-LHK

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO 

SHOW CAUSE

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

this motion. See Civ. L.R. 1-4. 

Plaintiffs cite National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws v. Mullen, 608 F. 

Supp. 945, 950 n.5 (N.D. Cal. 1985), for the proposition that the filing of a complaint is not a 

necessary prerequisite to a TRO. However, Mullen is inapposite as the plaintiffs had filed a 

complaint providing notice of their claims to the defendants and establishing the court’s 

jurisdiction over the matter. See id. Plaintiffs also cite United States v. Lynd, 301 F.2d 818, 823 

(5th Cir. 1962). Again, however, Lynd is procedurally distinguishable as the government had filed 

a complaint and the action had proceeded partway through trial before the district court granted a 

thirty day recess to allow the defendants time to prepare their defense. Id. at 820–21. These cases 

are factually and procedurally distinguishable and do not excuse Plaintiffs from complying with 

the District’s civil local rules. As explained below, this procedural defect also implicates the 

substantive merits of Plaintiffs’ application, as the Court lacks the necessary information to 

determine whether Plaintiffs can satisfy the elements for a temporary restraining order. 

Second, the Court finds that a temporary restraining order would be inappropriate on the 

merits based on Plaintiffs’ current submissions. Absent a complaint, or additional supporting 

documents, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have not made the “clear showing” required to 

merit the imposition of a temporary restraining order. See Lopez, 680 F.3d at 1072. Plaintiffs 

request a TRO ordering Defendants to “continue to cover and provide 24/7 hospice care at 

Plaintiff’s home” for Maureen Killoran. See ECF No. 1 at 3. As explained below, based on the 

Court’s review of Plaintiffs’ submissions, the Court is unable to determine whether Plaintiffs will 

be able to show a likelihood of success on the merits. See Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. As Plaintiffs 

bear the burden of persuasion, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ application. See Klein, 584 F.3d at

1201. 

Specifically, Plaintiffs have not explained what alleged wrongful actions the Defendants 

have taken, or when that alleged conduct occurred. It is unclear whether Plaintiffs have actually 

submitted requests for covered services that have been formally denied by Defendants. See, e.g., 

Case 5:15-cv-00864-LHK Document 14 Filed 02/27/15 Page 3 of 5
4

Case No.: 15-cv-00864-LHK

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO 

SHOW CAUSE

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

Declaration of David Killoran, ECF No. 1-2, ¶ 15 (“Kaiser has intimated that Maureen may no 

longer qualify for hospice benefits . . . .”) (emphasis added). The Court is unable to determine, 

based on Plaintiffs’ motion and supporting declaration, whether Defendants have previously 

denied Maureen Killoran hospice care, have indicated that they will deny future care, or have 

taken any action at all with regards to the provision or denial of covered services. Plaintiffs have 

not submitted any information regarding whether Defendants have determined that 24 hour care is 

not “necessary” as defined by the benefits plan, or whether a physician has concluded the 

opposite. See ECF No. 1-3, Exh. A (Evidence of Coverage, “EOC”) at 32 (providing that 24 hour 

care is available “if necessary for your hospice care”) (emphasis added); see also ECF No. 1-5 

(California Hospice & Palliative Care Association Standards of Quality), at 2 (explaining hospice 

care as including services at home, “[t]o the extent appropriate, based on the medical needs of the 

patient”) (emphasis added). 

Moreover, absent such information, the Court is unable to determine whether Plaintiffs are 

obligated to comply with the benefits plan’s grievance procedures, or whether Plaintiffs’ claims 

would fall within the binding arbitration clause of the benefits plan. See EOC at 52 (explaining 

that grievance procedures apply when a member is told “Services are not covered and you believe 

the Services should be covered”); EOC at 53 (urgent grievance procedure); EOC at 56 (binding 

arbitration clause). The Court is aware that Plaintiffs filed a brief statement indicating that the 

arbitration procedure is “inadequate” because it would take a minimum of two weeks to appoint an 

arbitrator. See ECF No. 9. However, the Court is unaware of how long Plaintiffs have been aware 

of their claim against Defendants, and whether the arbitration procedure would have been 

adequate had Plaintiffs initiated the required process at the time Plaintiffs first discovered 

Defendants’ alleged wrongful conduct. Plaintiffs’ declaration in support of their application seems 

to imply that Plaintiffs have known of the alleged wrongful conduct for some time. See, e.g., 

Killoran Decl. ¶¶ 17–18 (stating that Defendants have “repeatedly stated that they do not have the 

personnel available to provide” the requested services, and that Defendants have “only provided a 

Case 5:15-cv-00864-LHK Document 14 Filed 02/27/15 Page 4 of 5
5

Case No.: 15-cv-00864-LHK

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO 

SHOW CAUSE

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

few hours of these services since Maureen’s hospice began”). Furthermore, the Court notes that to 

the extent the benefits plan falls within the scope of the Federal Arbitration Act, the arbitration 

clause is presumed valid and enforceable, and the party resisting arbitration bears the burden of 

showing that the agreement is invalid or does not encompass the claims at issue. See Green Tree 

Fin. Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79, 92 (2000). 

In sum, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have both failed to comply with Civil L.R. 65-1(a)(1) 

and have not made the “clear showing” required to justify the “extraordinary and drastic remedy” 

of a temporary restraining order. Lopez, 680 F.3d at 1072. 

III.CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiffs’ ex parte 

application for a temporary restraining order and order to show cause. The Court directs Plaintiffs 

to address the concerns outlined in this order in any renewed application. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 27, 2015

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-00864-LHK Document 14 Filed 02/27/15 Page 5 of 5