Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08129/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08129-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1346 Tort Claim

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

American Aviation, Inc., a Utah

corporation, and Larry D. Wright, an

individual, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

The United States Department of

Transportation, a department of the United

States Government; The Federal Aviation

Administration, an agency within the

Department of Transportation; and Kennth

Reilly, Mirlo E. Ochoa, Dennis Pratte,

Kent Stephens, John Allen, Richard S.

Lund, Herman H. Ross, William C.

Withycombe, John Duncan, Bradley D.

Peterson, and John Does 1-5, Individuals,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-8129-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Application for Preliminary Injunction

and Temporary Restraining Order (Dkt.#9). Plaintiff has requested expedited review.

On August 20, 2008 at or around 3:45 P.M., Plaintiff lodged the instant petition for a

Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) with the Court. The petition concerns the Federal

Aviation Authority’s revocation of American Aviation’s interim operating authority to

conduct sightseeing flights from the City of Page, Arizona.

It appears as though Plaintiffs have not provided Defendants with notice of the instant

TRO petition. Essentially, Plaintiffs have requested an ex parte hearing where they would

Case 3:09-cv-08129-MHM Document 13 Filed 08/21/09 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 -

ask the Court to issue a TRO without notice to the opposing parties. While the caption for

the order states that it is an application for a “Temporary Restraining Order With Notice,”

the accompanying proposed order refers to “Plaintiffs’ ex parte application for the issuance

of a Temporary Restraining Order.” (Dkt.#9-3) Nowhere in the motion do Plaintiffs indicate

that the Defendants have been provided notice of the request. However, Rule 65(b) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that any TRO issued without notice include

“specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint [which] clearly show that immediate and

irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be

heard in opposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). In the instant case, Plaintiffs’ petition has not

met the demands of Rule 65(b), since their petition has not been accompanied with an

affidavit or a verified complaint that explains why Defendants have not been provided with

notice of this matter, thereby justifying the Court to proceed in their absence.

In addition, based on the limited information that has been submitted to the Court, it is

altogether unclear why Plaintiffs should not have been able to alert Defendants to the instant

action in time for their representatives to make an appearance before the Court. The Ninth

Circuit has cautioned district courts against issuing a TRO without notice to the adverse party,

stating that the “[c]ircumstances justifying the issuance of an ex parte order are extremely

limited.” Reno Air Racing Ass’n, Inc. v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2006)

(citing Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423 (1974)). The Court is unwilling

to utilize this drastic and exceptional remedy given Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the

procedural demands of Rule 65(b) Fed. R. Civ. P.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Plaintiffs’ Application for a Temporary Restraining

Order.

/ / / 

Case 3:09-cv-08129-MHM Document 13 Filed 08/21/09 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 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing Plaintiffs to serve notice on the Defendants

regarding their request for a Preliminary Injunction. After Defendants have been served

notice of this request, Plaintiffs are directed to notify the Court and a hearing on the

Preliminary Injunction may be scheduled.

DATED this 20th day of August, 2009.

Case 3:09-cv-08129-MHM Document 13 Filed 08/21/09 Page 3 of 3