Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02303/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02303-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Contitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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

Because oral argument will not be of material 1

assistance, the court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. 

See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 78-230(h).

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

HELIX ELECTRIC, INC.,

NO. CIV. S-05-2303 FCD KJM

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DIVISION OF LABOR 

STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT,

a agency of the State of 

California, et al.,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

This matter is before the court on defendant Public Works

Compliance Program’s (“PWCP”) motion for reconsideration of the

court’s decision granting plaintiff Helix Electric, Inc.

(“Helix”) a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) without

imposition of a bond. The instant motion is filed pursuant to 1

the parties’ stipulation, of December 2, 2005, agreeing to

continue the TRO and hearing on the motion for preliminary

Case 2:05-cv-02303-FCD-KJM Document 22 Filed 12/13/05 Page 1 of 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

2

injunction to January 27, 2005. (Stip. & Order, filed Dec. 2,

2005.) 

The PWCP argues that the court must require the filing of a

bond because the case involves application of the NorrisLaGuardia Act (the “Act”) in that, by Helix’s own allegations,

the PWCP is a “person participating or interested” in a “labor

dispute” as defined by the Act. See 29 U.S.C. § 113. Where such

a dispute is present, argues the PWCP, Section 107 of the Act

requires a bond upon issuance of a TRO. 29 U.S.C. § 107 (“no

[TRO] . . . shall be issued except on condition that complainant

shall first file an undertaking with adequate security in an

amount to be fixed by the court sufficient to recompense those

enjoined for any loss”). Helix opposes the motion on standing

grounds and on the merits.

The court agrees that the PWCP does not have standing under

the Act to challenge the imposition of the TRO, and as such, it

does not reach the question of the substantive application of the

Act to this case. Under the TRO, “defendants” are restrained

from “[p]roviding the addresses of Helix’s employees to PWCP or

any related entity pursuant to Labor Code section 1776(e).” 

(TRO, filed Nov. 22, 2005, at 2:9-14.) The court recognizes that

the TRO references “defendants” generally but the terms of the

order clearly pertain only to the defendant County of Sacramento

or any other related-defendant entity/person which is authorized

by statute to release the subject information. In that regard,

Helix indicates, in its opposition to the instant motion, that to

the extent the PWCP has been named in the TRO, it “can be

stricken as an unnecessary party” because the relevant

Case 2:05-cv-02303-FCD-KJM Document 22 Filed 12/13/05 Page 2 of 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

3

information has not yet been released to it. (Opp’n, filed Dec.

8, 2005, n. 1.) (TRO, filed Nov. 22, 2005.) 

Helix is correct. The TRO does not restrain the PWCP in any

way. Such restraint is necessary to invoke the Act’s provisions,

namely: the PWCP must be a party against whom “relief is sought”

and be a party “enjoined” by the restraining order. 29 U.S.C. §§

107, 113. Neither is true here. Rather, the TRO is not directed

at the PWCP but only the County of Sacramento and any other

related entity or person authorized by statute to release the

subject records. It is those entities or persons that are

restrained by the order from releasing the information. 

Significantly, the County did not object to imposition of the TRO

nor the entry of the order without requirement of a bond. 

Because the PWCP is not restrained by the order, in that no

relief is sought against it, it lacks standing to challenge the

order under the Act.

For these reasons, the court DENIES the PWCP’s motion for

reconsideration. The TRO, filed November 22, 2005 and extended

by the parties’ stipulation of December 2, 2005, shall remain in

effect as ordered; Helix is not required to post a bond.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 DATED: December 12, 2005

 /s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, Jr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-02303-FCD-KJM Document 22 Filed 12/13/05 Page 3 of 3