Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_20-cv-00419/USCOURTS-azd-2_20-cv-00419-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Rim Country Educational Alliance, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. 

Thomas P. Morrissey, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-20-00419-PHX-SPL 

TEMPORARY 

RESTRAINING ORDER 

The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and 

Preliminary Injunction, wherein Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have voted to remove 

Plaintiffs Larry Sugarman, Richard Richey, and Jennifer Smith from their positions as 

Directors of the Rim Country Educational Alliance (“RCEA”) without opportunity to 

respond to an alleged improper “for cause” finding (Doc. 1). Plaintiffs now seek to enjoin 

Defendants from appointing new Directors at a meeting scheduled for Thursday, February 

27, 2020 at 5:30 p.m. (Doc. 1). 

I. Legal Standard and Discussion

A request for a TRO is analyzed under the same standards as a request for a 

preliminary injunction. Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 

832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001). “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) (quoting 

Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (per curiam) (emphasis omitted)); see 

Case 2:20-cv-00419-SPL Document 9 Filed 02/27/20 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

also Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted) (“A 

preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right”).

“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must show that (1) he is likely to 

succeed on the merits, (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm without an injunction, (3) 

the balance of equities tips in his favor, and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. 

Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. “But if a plaintiff can only show that there are ‘serious questions 

going to the merits’— a lesser showing than likelihood of success on the merits— then a 

preliminary injunction may still issue if the ‘balance of hardships tips sharply in the 

plaintiff’s favor,’ and the other two Winter factors are satisfied.” Shell Offshore, Inc. v. 

Greenpeace, Inc., 709 F.3d 1281, 1291 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Alliance for the Wild 

Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011)). Under this serious questions 

variant of the Winter test, “[t]he elements . . . must be balanced, so that a stronger showing 

of one element may offset a weaker showing of another.” Lopez, 680 F.3d at 1072. 

Plaintiffs’ allegations that Defendants have violated the Due Process clauses of the 

U.S. and Arizona Constitutions, as well as breached their Governance Agreement, leads 

the Court to find that Plaintiffs are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a 

temporary restraining order pending a hearing on the merits of a preliminary injunction. 

The allegations in the complaint demonstrate that Plaintiffs have a strong likelihood of 

success on the merits, and a balance of the equities in this case clearly tips in Plaintiff’s 

favor considering the constitutional rights at stake. Finally, the Court finds that a temporary 

restraining order would protect the public interest by maintaining the status quo until a 

preliminary injunction hearing can be held. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and 

Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 2) is granted. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants are prohibited from acting in 

furtherance of its attempted removal of Larry Sugarman, Richard Richey, and Jennifer 

Smith by appointing their alleged replacements on the RCEA Board.

///

Case 2:20-cv-00419-SPL Document 9 Filed 02/27/20 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

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, no later than March 4, 2020, Plaintiff must 

serve a copy on Defendants and file proof of service with the Court of the following: (1) 

the Complaint; (2) the Motion for Preliminary Injunction; and (3) this Order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants must file a response to Plaintiffs’

Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 2) no later than 

March 10, 2020. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting a hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for 

Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 2) on March 12, 2020 at 

1:30 p.m., before the Honorable Judge Steven P. Logan, United States District Judge, in 

the Sandra Day O’Connor United States Courthouse, located at 401 West Washington 

Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85003, 5th Floor, Courtroom 501.

Dated this 27th day of February, 2020.

Honorable Steven P. Logan

United States District Judge

Case 2:20-cv-00419-SPL Document 9 Filed 02/27/20 Page 3 of 3