Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01450/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01450-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Account Receivable

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiffs seek an ex parte temporary restraining order that would prevent defendant from 

cancelling a contractual agreement. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief while the parties pursue 

arbitration, which Plaintiffs initiated prior to filing this suit.

Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 governs preliminary injunctions and temporary 

restraining orders. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 65. The substantive standard for granting a temporary 

restraining order is the same as the standard for entering a preliminary injunction. Majors v. 

Jeanes, 48 F.Supp.2d 1310, 1312 n.3 (D. Ariz. 2014); Rovio Entm’t Ltd. v. Royal Plush Toys, 

Inc., 907 F.Supp.2d 1086, 1111 (N.D. Cal. 2012); Bryant v. Matvieshen, 904 F.Supp.2d 1034, 

1042 (E.D. Cal. 2012); Welker v. Cicerone, 174 F.Supp.2d 1055, 1062 (C.D. Cal. 2001). A 

plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction or a restraining order must establish: (1) that he is likely 

to succeed on the merits, (2) that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of 

preliminary relief, (3) that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and (4) that an injunction is in 

HUMANA INSURANCE COMPANY, a 

Wisconsin Corporation, et al.,

Plaintiffs

v.

TENET HEALTH SYSTEM, a Texas 

Corporation,

Defendant

CASE NO. 1:16-CV-1450 AWI SAB 

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE 

APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY 

RESTRAINING ORDER

(Doc. No. 4)

Case 1:16-cv-01450-AWI-SAB Document 10 Filed 09/30/16 Page 1 of 4
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

the public interest. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 21 (2008); Angelotti 

Chiropractic v. Baker, 791 F.3d 1075, 1081 (9th Cir. 2015). If a moving party has only shown 

“serious questions going to the merits,” then an injunction may issue if the moving party meets the 

irreparable harm requirement, meets the public interest requirement, and shows that the balance of 

hardships “tips sharply” in his favor. Angelotti, 791 F.3d at 1081. However, if a moving party 

fails to show that he has at least “some chance on the merits,” then no injunction will issue. 

Developmental Servs. Network v. Douglas, 666 F.3d 540, 544 (9th Cir. 2012). “Injunctive relief . 

. . must be tailored to remedy the specific harm alleged.” Park Vill. Apt. Tenants Ass'n v.

Mortimer Howard Trust, 636 F.3d 1150, 1160 (9th Cir. 2011). Under Rule 65(b), a court may 

issue an ex parte temporary restraining order only if: (1) it clearly appears . . . that immediate and 

irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the applicant before the adverse party or that 

party's attorney can be heard in opposition, and (2) the applicant's attorney certifies to the court in 

writing the efforts, if any, which have been made to give the notice and the reasons supporting the 

claim that notice should not be required. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 65(b); Reno Air Racing Ass'n v. 

McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1130 (9th Cir. 2006). 

Discussion

The Court will not grant Plaintiffs’ motion at this time. 

First, Plaintiffs have invoked the Court’s diversity jurisdiction, which the Court takes to 

mean that Plaintiffs are proceeding under state law. The only “count”/cause of action in the 

Complaint is for injunctive relief, there are no common law or statutory causes of action/authority 

identified. Under California law, injunctive relief is a remedy, it is not a cause of action. 

Shamsian v. Atlantic Richfield, Co., 107 Cal.App.4th 967, 984-85 (2003). Without an actual 

cause of action in the Complaint, Plaintiffs do not adequately demonstrate a probability of success 

on the merits. Plaintiffs have cited no cases in which a court, without the benefit of any actual 

cause of action being pled before it, has issued an injunction to maintain the status quo pending 

resolution of the dispute before an arbitrator. 

Second, Plaintiffs acknowledge that they have initiated arbitration proceedings, and have 

included their “Arbitration Complaint” (“AC”). See Doc. No. 1 at Ex. A. In the AC, Plaintiffs 

Case 1:16-cv-01450-AWI-SAB Document 10 Filed 09/30/16 Page 2 of 4
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

3

appear to seek very similar injunctive relief from the arbitrator as they do from this Court in this 

motion. See id. at ¶ 26. There has been no discussion concerning what efforts have been made 

with the arbitrator to obtain injunctive relief or an explanation of why injunctive relief from the 

arbitrator cannot be obtained. 

Third, it is not clear to the Court that one of the principal irreparable harms identified will 

result if injunctive is not issued on September 30, 2016. As the Court understands the matter, 

there is a contractual relationship between the parties that will, at a minimum, run until December 

31, 2016, which means that patients will continue to receive medical treatment beyond September 

30 from the hospitals in question.

1

 

Finally, although not per se a reason to deny injunctive relief, it is not clear that the Eastern 

District of California is the appropriate venue.2 Based on the e-mail string provided, it appears 

that the contracts at issue may have been negotiated between Torrance, California (which is in the 

Central District of California) and Atlanta, Georgia.3 See Doc. No. 6-11. Contrary to the 

Complaint, it is not clear that any relevant actions took place within the Eastern District of 

California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) (“A civil action may be brought in – (2) a judicial district 

in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a 

substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated.”).

For these reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion will be denied. However, the Court acknowledges 

that there are significant questions raised in Plaintiffs’ motion. Therefore, the Court will give 

Plaintiffs the opportunity to address the concerns identified in this order. 

//

//

//

 

1

If the Court’s understanding is incorrect, this highlights the danger of filing a motion so close to September 30, 2016 

(the motion was filed after the close of business on September 29, 2016). See Doc. No. 4.

2 The Court may raise the issue of improper venue sua sponte. See Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 

1986).

3

In the e-mail string, Torrance, California is listed as the address for Plaintiffs’ representative, and Defendant’s 

representative has a telephone number with an area code of 404, which is the area code for Atlanta, Georgia area. See

http://www.allareacodes.com/404.

Case 1:16-cv-01450-AWI-SAB Document 10 Filed 09/30/16 Page 3 of 4
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

4

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiffs’ ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order is DENIED without prejudice;

2. Plaintiffs may file an amended motion and/or an amended complaint that addresses the 

issues raised in this Order, particularly a failure to state a claim and improper venue, no 

later than 9:30 a.m. on October 4, 2016;4

3. If Plaintiffs do not allege facts that demonstrate venue in the Eastern District of California 

is appropriate, this case will be dismissed; and

4. If Plaintiffs file appropriate amended documents that alleviate the Court’s concerns, then 

the Court will issue further orders at that time. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 30, 2016 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

 

4

Plaintiffs have identified October 15, 2016 as the commencement date of an open season. Given the significance of 

this date, the Court finds that a somewhat accelerated briefing schedule is warranted.

Case 1:16-cv-01450-AWI-SAB Document 10 Filed 09/30/16 Page 4 of 4