Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02697/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02697-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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 - 06cv2697

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SARAH TRAN, on her behalf and on

behalf of Tinh Nguyen, deceased; and

BICH T. TRAN,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 06-CV-02697-H

(BLM)

SCHEDULING ORDER RE

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

AND OTHER MOTIONS 

vs.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE, in her official

capacity as Secretary of State; and

SETH D. WINNICK, in his official

capacity as Consul General,

Defendants.

On December 12, 2006, plaintiffs Sarah Tran and Bich T. Tran (“Plaintiffs”) filed

a complaint against defendants Condoleezza Rice and Seth D. Winnick (“Defendants”)

seeking declaratory and injunctive relief regarding the federal government’s exclusion

of Sarah Tran’s adopted Vietnamese daughter Bich Tran from the United States. (Doc.

No. 1.) On February 21, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and

a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) seeking to enjoin Defendants from barring Bich

Tran from the United States or from delaying the processing of Bich Tran’s Orderly

Departure Program and H-2B visa applications. (Doc. Nos. 13-14.) Plaintiffs also filed

a motion requesting the Court to certify to the Secretary of State, pursuant to 8 U.S.C.

§ 1202(f)(1), that the visa file of Bich Tran is needed by the court in the interest of the

Case 3:06-cv-02697-H-BLM Document 16 Filed 02/23/07 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 - 06cv2697

ends of justice, which would allow the Secretary of State, in its discretion, to make

certified copies of the file available to the Court. (Doc. No. 15.) 

Rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a district court to

grant an ex parte TRO only if:

(1) it clearly appears from 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. 

After carefully reviewing all of the papers, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have not

met these standards, and accordingly the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion for an ex parte

TRO. Since Plaintiffs did not complete their required certificate of service until

February 18, 2007 (Doc. No. 12), and Defendants have 60 days after that date to file

their answer, see Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(a)(3)(A), the Court will hold a hearing on the

Plaintiffs’ other motions after the 60 day period is completed. Therefore, the Court will

hold a hearing regarding Plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary injunction and whether the

Court will certify to the Secretary of State that Bich Tran’s visa file is needed by the

court in the interest of the ends of justice on April 23, 2007 at 10:30 a.m. Any

oppositions to these motions should be filed by Defendants on or before March 26,

2007, and any reply should be filed by Plaintiffs on or before April 9, 2007. If 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Defendants require more time to file an opposition, they must file a request showing

Case 3:06-cv-02697-H-BLM Document 16 Filed 02/23/07 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 - 06cv2697

good cause why the Court should grant a continuance.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 23, 2007

 MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

COPIES TO:

Alexandra T. Manbeck 

Law Offices of Alexandra T. Manbeck 

4531 University Avenue 

San Diego, CA 92105 

Samuel W. Bettwy

U S Attorneys Office Southern District of California 

Civil Division 

880 Front Street 

Suite 6253 

San Diego, CA 92101 

Case 3:06-cv-02697-H-BLM Document 16 Filed 02/23/07 Page 3 of 3