Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01117/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01117-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham 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

----oo0oo----

HOMES & LOANS, INC., a

California corporation; and

LINDA PRICE, an individual,

NO. CIV. S 05-1117 MCE PAN

Plaintiffs,

v. ORDER

THOMAS ANTHONY WIMBERLY, an

individual; RON JONES dba

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA HOMES &

LOANS, an individual, and DOES

1 through 25, inclusive,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

On June 6, 2005, Plaintiffs filed a complaint in this matter

alleging trade name infringement in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125

(a). Ten additional pendent state claims have also been

asserted. Concurrently with the filing of their complaint,

Plaintiffs also submitted an Ex Parte Application for Temporary

Restraining Order. The Court has read and considered that

application.

///

Case 2:05-cv-01117-MCE -PAN Document 10 Filed 06/07/05 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

Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application is DENIED, without

prejudice. 

Counsel are directed to the provisions of Local Rule 65-231,

which governs the issuance of a temporary restraining order. 

Subsection (a) states clearly that “[e]xcept in the most

extraordinary of circumstance, no temporary restraining order

shall be granted in the absence of actual notice to the affected

party and/or counsel, by telephone or other means, or a

sufficient showing of efforts made to provide notice.” 

Rule 65-231(a) provides further that the requisite notice

must include, inter alia, “the nature of the relief to be

requested.” Moreover, subdivision (c) of the Rule goes on to

provide that certain documents must be provided to not only the

court but also to the parties, including both the complaint, the

Motion for temporary restraining order, and the supporting brief

and affidavits. 

Here, counsel for Plaintiffs have attached a letter sent to

counsel for Defendant Wimberly and to Defendant Jones dated June

3, 2005. (Decl. Of James P. Chandler, Ex. 2). While that letter

sets forth Plaintiffs’ intent to seek a temporary restraining

order, it does not otherwise elucidate the precise nature of the

relief to be requested, as required by Local Rule 65-231(a). In

addition, the letter states plainly that “Plaintiffs’ complaint

and moving papers will be provided at the time of the hearing.” 

Counsel have not demonstrated any good cause (not to mention

“extraordinary circumstances”) why these documents were not

provided to Defendants in accordance with Rule 65-231(c). 

///

Case 2:05-cv-01117-MCE -PAN Document 10 Filed 06/07/05 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

In addition, Counsel for Plaintiffs have further failed to

provide (1) a proposed temporary restraining order with a

provision for a bond; and (2) a proposed order with blanks for

fixing the time and date for hearing a motion for preliminary

injunction, the date for the filing of responsive papers, the

amount of the bond if any, and the date and hour of issuance. 

See Local Rule 65-231(c)(6) and (7).

Plaintiffs may resubmit their Application after rectifying

these deficiencies. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 7, 2005

___________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-01117-MCE -PAN Document 10 Filed 06/07/05 Page 3 of 3