Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01641/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01641-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 18:1964 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

GREGORY R. KAIGHN and JANIS 

KAIGHN, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CAROL DELLINGER, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-01641-MCE-DAD 

ORDER 

The Court is in receipt of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (ECF 

No. 2) and Notice of Related Case (ECF No. 3). The Court first finds that this case is in 

fact related to Kaighn v. United States, Case Number 2:15-cv-01602-MCE-AC, which 

Plaintiffs filed just seven days before filing this case. Although the Chief Judge for the 

Eastern District of California is the assigned District Court judge in both actions, there 

are currently two different magistrate judges assigned to the actions. Accordingly, this 

action is reassigned from Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd to Magistrate Judge Allison 

Claire, pursuant to Local Rule 123(c). The new case number for this action is 2:15-cv01641-MCE-AC. 

Furthermore, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED. 

Plaintiff has failed to establish the propriety of such a remedy. See generally Winter v. 

Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); Alliance for Wild Rockies v. 

Case 2:15-cv-01641-MCE-AC Document 6 Filed 08/04/15 Page 1 of 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 

2

Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131-36 (9th Cir. 2011). A review of both the Motion and the 

Complaint (ECF No. 1) indicates that Plaintiffs are simply attempting to delay an unlawful 

detainer hearing scheduled for August 5, 2015 in the Sacramento County Superior 

Court. See Pls.’ Mot., ECF No. 2, at 1-2 (requesting an order that enjoins Defendants 

“from taking any action adverse to Plaintiffs or to evict Plaintiffs from the 6064 Leafwood 

Drive property during the pendency of this lawsuit”). This Court has consistently refused 

to enjoin such actions, see, e.g., Scherbenske v. Wachovia Mortg., FSB, 626 F. Supp. 

2d 1052 (E.D. Cal. 2009), and refuses to do so in this action. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ 

Motion for Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 4, 2015 

Case 2:15-cv-01641-MCE-AC Document 6 Filed 08/04/15 Page 2 of 2