Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02151/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02151-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

UNITED INDIAN HEALTH 

SERVICES, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

JULIE SU, in her official 

capacity as LABOR 

COMMISSIONER OF THE 

CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF LABOR 

STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT; ROBERT 

DAVIS; and RICHARD BALAND,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-02151-GEB-KJN

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE

APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY 

RESTRAINING ORDER (“TRO”) AND 

REQUIRING SERVICE OF FILED 

DOCUMENTS SHOULD PLAINTIFF 

DESIRE TO PROCEED WITH A REQUEST 

FOR A TRO 

On October 15, 2015, Plaintiff filed an ex parte motion

seeking to enjoin Defendants “from investigating complaints made 

to the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement [(the 

“DLSE”)] by Robert Davis and Richard Baland for alleged 

violations of the California Labor Code . . . [and] preclud[ing] 

Defendants from holding, participating in, or providing testimony 

at an investigative hearing scheduled by the Division of Labor 

Standards Enforcement to be held on October 22 and 23, 2015.” 

(Notice of Ex Parte Mot. & Ex Parte Mot. for TRO (“Mot.”) 1:24, 

2:1-3, ECF No. 5.).

A temporary restraining order (“TRO”) may be issued 

without notice to the adverse party or its counsel only if: “(A) 

specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly 

Case 2:15-cv-02151-TLN-KJN Document 6 Filed 10/16/15 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

show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will 

result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in 

opposition; and (B) the movant’s attorney certifies in writing 

any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not 

be required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1).

The circumstances justifying the issuance of an ex 

parte TRO are extremely limited:

The stringent restrictions imposed by . . . 

Rule 65, on the availability of ex parte 

temporary restraining orders reflect the fact 

that our entire jurisprudence runs counter to 

the notion of court action taken before 

reasonable notice and an opportunity to be 

heard has been granted both sides of a 

dispute. Ex parte temporary restraining 

orders are no doubt necessary in certain 

circumstances, but under federal law they 

should be restricted to serving their 

underlying purpose of preserving the status 

quo and preventing irreparable harm just so 

long as is necessary to hold a hearing, and 

no longer.

Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck 

Drivers Local No. 70 of Alameda Cnty., 415 U.S. 423, 438–39 

(1974) (internal citation omitted). 

Plaintiff avers that it will suffer irreparable injury 

before the adverse party can be heard in Opposition. (See Brief 

ISO Mot. 4:10–16, ECF No. 5-2.) Although Plaintiff appears to 

have emailed notice to Defendants that Plaintiff would be filing 

a request for a TRO,

1 (Aff. ISO Mot. ¶ 2–4, ECF No. 5-3),

Plaintiff has failed to “clearly show that immediate and 

irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant 

before the adverse party can be heard in opposition,” as required 

 

1 Plaintiff’s counsel also declares he spoke with counsel for the 

department that oversees the DLSE. (Aff. ISO Mot. ¶ 5.)

Case 2:15-cv-02151-TLN-KJN Document 6 Filed 10/16/15 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

for the issuance of an ex parte TRO.

Further, Plaintiff fails to provide adequate 

explanation regarding why Plaintiff delayed seeking to enjoin the 

impending investigative hearing until the Thursday afternoon one 

week before the scheduled hearing when Plaintiff was notified of 

the DLSE complaints underlying this investigation on October 2, 

2014, (Pl.’s Compl. for Decl. and Injunctive Relief 4:¶ 13, ECF 

No. 1.), well over a year ago, and subpoenas have been issued 

over the past “few weeks.” (Brief ISO Mot. 3:7.) See Mammoth 

Specialty Lodging, LLC v. WE-KA-JASSA Inv. Fund, LLC, No. CIV 2-

10-0864 LKK/JFM, 2010 WL 1539811, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2010) 

(denying motion for a TRO to enjoin foreclosure when Plaintiff 

delayed in bringing motion).

For the stated reasons, the request for an ex parte TRO 

is DENIED. Should Plaintiff wish to proceed with its request for 

a TRO, Plaintiff shall serve Defendants with all filed documents 

no later than 1:00 PM on October 15, 2015, and file proof of 

service with the Court this same day. Defendants may file an

opposition to the requested TRO by 5:00 PM on October 19, 2015. 

Plaintiff may file a reply by noon on October 20, 2015. If 

Plaintiff complies with this order, the hearing is scheduled to 

commence at 11:00 AM on Wednesday, October 21, 2015. 

Dated: October 16, 2015

Case 2:15-cv-02151-TLN-KJN Document 6 Filed 10/16/15 Page 3 of 3