Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01909/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01909-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Housing Discrimination

---

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

LaRELL FRANKLIN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

ALLSTATE CORPORATION et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C-06-1909 MMC

ORDER DEFERRING RULING ON

PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION

FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER

(Docket No. 3)

Before the Court is plaintiffs’ ex parte application for temporary restraining order and

motion for preliminary injunction, filed March 13, 2006. Pursuant to Rule 65(b) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court may issue a temporary restraining order

ex parte only under very limited circumstances:

A temporary restraining order may be granted without written or oral notice to

the adverse party or that party's attorney only if (1) it clearly appears from the

specific facts shown by affidavit or by the verified complaint 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. P. 65(b). Plaintiffs have not submitted the requisite certification as to the

efforts made to provide notice to defendants of the instant application or the reasons why

such notice should not be required.

Case 3:06-cv-01909-MMC Document 7 Filed 03/14/06 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

Accordingly, the Court will defer ruling on the instant application until Friday,

March 17, 2006, to afford plaintiffs the opportunity to serve the defendants and file proof of

such service, or to file the certification required by Rule 65(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 14, 2006 MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01909-MMC Document 7 Filed 03/14/06 Page 2 of 2