Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00441/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00441-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 20:1400 Civil Rights of Handicapped Child

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

N.R. A MINOR, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

SAN RAMON VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL

DISTRICT,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 05-00441 SI

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER

OnAugust24, 2005, plaintiffsfiled an application seeking a temporary restraining order fromthisCourt

“prohibiting Defendant from interfering with Plaintiffs’ right to ‘stay put’ of the behavioral support services

provided to Plaintiffs pursuant to their existing settlement agreements with Defendant and Plaintiffs’ right to

participate in their 2005-2006 classroom placements with the behavior support services provided by their

current service providers.” Pls.’ Mot. at 11:22-25. 

This Court may issue a TRO only if "immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage willresult to the

applicant" if the order does not issue. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). In evaluating an application for a preliminary

injunction, this Court "must consider the likelihood that the [moving party] will prevail on the merits and the

possible harm to the parties from the granting or denial of the injunction." Sierra On-Line, Inc. v. Phoenix

Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1421 (9th Cir. 1984). Ultimately, the moving party must demonstrate either

(1) a likelihood of success on the merits and the possibility ofirreparable injury, or (2) the existence of serious

questions going to the merits and the balance of hardships tipping in their favor. Gilder v. PGA Tour, Inc., 936

F.2d 417, 422 (9th Cir. 1991); Miss World (UK) Ltd. v. Mrs. America Pageants, Inc., 856 F.2d 1445, 1448

(9th Cir. 1988); Rodeo Collection, Ltd. v. West Seventh, 812 F.2d 1215, 1217 (9th Cir. 1987 ). "These are

not two distincttests, but rather the opposite ends of a single 'continuum in which the required showing of harm

Case 3:05-cv-00441-SI Document 74 Filed 08/25/05 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1 The due process hearings on this issue are scheduled for September 13 and 27, 2005, and October

25, 2005.

2

variesinversely withthe required showing ofmeritoriousness.'" Miss World, 856 F.2d at 1448 (quotingRodeo

Collection, 812 F.2d at 1217). 

Plaintiffs seek a TRO to ensure that their current behavioralservices providers, rather than the District

providers, will attend class with them on the first day of school, which is Monday, August 29, 2005. In

administrative proceedings before the state Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”), defendant has filed

motions seeking a determination that each plaintiff’s “stay put” behavioral services provider is the District’s

proposed provider.1 These motions were served on plaintiffs at the end of July. Decl. of Sue Ann Salmon

Evans ¶ 3. Although presumably plaintiffs have been aware of both the pending “stay put” motions and the

academic calendar forsome weeks, they chose to file this TRO request on the Wednesday before the Monday

on which school starts, and have offered no explanation for this delay.

The Court finds that plaintiffs have not established their entitlement to a TRO under either of the

applicable tests. They cannot show likelihood of success on the merits because there are serious questions

about the Court’s jurisdiction over this action. In addition, plaintiffs have not demonstrated irreparable harm

from having services provided by District providers rather than the current providers. Plaintiffs essentially ask

the Court to find that their current providers are the appropriate “stay put” providers rather than the District

providers, which is precisely the question before the OAH. Under the circumstances, the Court finds it

necessary to allow the administrative procedures to play out without its interference.

Accordingly, plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 25, 2005 

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-00441-SI Document 74 Filed 08/25/05 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

N.R. A MINOR, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

SAN RAMON VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL

DISTRICT,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 05-00441 SI

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER

OnAugust24, 2005, plaintiffsfiled an application seeking a temporary restraining order fromthisCourt

“prohibiting Defendant from interfering with Plaintiffs’ right to ‘stay put’ of the behavioral support services

provided to Plaintiffs pursuant to their existing settlement agreements with Defendant and Plaintiffs’ right to

participate in their 2005-2006 classroom placements with the behavior support services provided by their

current service providers.” Pls.’ Mot. at 11:22-25. 

This Court may issue a TRO only if "immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage willresult to the

applicant" if the order does not issue. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). In evaluating an application for a preliminary

injunction, this Court "must consider the likelihood that the [moving party] will prevail on the merits and the

possible harm to the parties from the granting or denial of the injunction." Sierra On-Line, Inc. v. Phoenix

Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1421 (9th Cir. 1984). Ultimately, the moving party must demonstrate either

(1) a likelihood of success on the merits and the possibility ofirreparable injury, or (2) the existence of serious

questions going to the merits and the balance of hardships tipping in their favor. Gilder v. PGA Tour, Inc., 936

F.2d 417, 422 (9th Cir. 1991); Miss World (UK) Ltd. v. Mrs. America Pageants, Inc., 856 F.2d 1445, 1448

(9th Cir. 1988); Rodeo Collection, Ltd. v. West Seventh, 812 F.2d 1215, 1217 (9th Cir. 1987 ). "These are

not two distincttests, but rather the opposite ends of a single 'continuum in which the required showing of harm

Case 3:05-cv-00441-SI Document 74 Filed 08/25/05 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1 The due process hearings on this issue are scheduled for September 13 and 27, 2005, and October

25, 2005.

2

variesinversely withthe required showing ofmeritoriousness.'" Miss World, 856 F.2d at 1448 (quotingRodeo

Collection, 812 F.2d at 1217). 

Plaintiffs seek a TRO to ensure that their current behavioralservices providers, rather than the District

providers, will attend class with them on the first day of school, which is Monday, August 29, 2005. In

administrative proceedings before the state Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”), defendant has filed

motions seeking a determination that each plaintiff’s “stay put” behavioral services provider is the District’s

proposed provider.1 These motions were served on plaintiffs at the end of July. Decl. of Sue Ann Salmon

Evans ¶ 3. Although presumably plaintiffs have been aware of both the pending “stay put” motions and the

academic calendar forsome weeks, they chose to file this TRO request on the Wednesday before the Monday

on which school starts, and have offered no explanation for this delay.

The Court finds that plaintiffs have not established their entitlement to a TRO under either of the

applicable tests. They cannot show likelihood of success on the merits because there are serious questions

about the Court’s jurisdiction over this action. In addition, plaintiffs have not demonstrated irreparable harm

from having services provided by District providers rather than the current providers. Plaintiffs essentially ask

the Court to find that their current providers are the appropriate “stay put” providers rather than the District

providers, which is precisely the question before the OAH. Under the circumstances, the Court finds it

necessary to allow the administrative procedures to play out without its interference.

Accordingly, plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 25, 2005 

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-00441-SI Document 74 Filed 08/25/05 Page 4 of 4