Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_20-cv-00893/USCOURTS-azd-2_20-cv-00893-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 42:405 Fair Housing 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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Arizona Recovery Housing Association,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Arizona Department of Health Services, et 

al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-20-00893-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s joint motion for a temporary restraining order 

(“TRO”) and preliminary injunction (“PI”). The standard for obtaining a TRO and a PI is

identical. Synopsys, Inc. v. AzurEngine Techs., Inc., 401 F. Supp. 3d 1068, 1072 (S.D. Cal. 

2019). However, they serve different purposes. W. Watersheds Project v. Bernhardt, 391 

F. Supp. 3d 1002, 1008 (D. Or. 2019). Specifically,

“[A] temporary restraining order serves a purpose different from that of a 

preliminary injunction. ‘The purpose of a temporary restraining order is to 

preserve an existing situation in status quo until the court has an opportunity 

to pass upon the merits of the demand for a preliminary injunction.’” Garcia 

v. Yonkers Sch. Dist., 561 F.3d 97, 107 (2d Cir. 2009) (quoting Pan Am. 

World Airways, Inc. v. Flight Eng’rs’ Int’l Ass’n, PAA Chapter, 306 F.2d 

840, 842-43 (2d Cir. 1962) ); see also Procter & Gamble Co. v. Bankers Tr. 

Co., 78 F.3d 219, 226 (6th Cir. 1996) (“[T]he purpose of a TRO under Rule 

65 is to preserve the status quo so that a reasoned resolution of a dispute may 

be had.”); Bronco Wine Co. v. U.S. Dep't of Treasury, 997 F. Supp. 1309, 

1313 (E.D. Cal. 1996) (“The purpose of a TRO is to preserve the status 

quo pending a full hearing on a preliminary injunction.”).

W. Watersheds Project, 391 F. Supp. 3d at 1008–09. Additionally, while a TRO in some 

circumstances can be issued without notice, a PI cannot. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65; see also 

Synopysys, Inc. 401 F. Supp. 3d at 1072 (“the primary difference [between a TRO and a PI 

Case 2:20-cv-00893-JAT Document 9 Filed 05/14/20 Page 1 of 3
- 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

is] duration: preliminary injunctions remain in force throughout the litigation, while TROs, 

which are traditionally entered on an ex parte basis, are limited to 28 days. See Fed. R. Civ. 

Pro. 65(b)(2).”).

Here, Plaintiff conflated the TRO and PI request into a single document without 

specifying the relief is seeks. Plaintiff did not indicate it was seeking the TRO on an ex 

parte basis, but Plaintiff did not endorse Defendants on the certificate of service. (Doc. 8 

at 18). Further, Plaintiff did not indicate it was seeking two separate remedies: a TRO for 

a limited period of time, to be followed by a PI after a hearing. (Doc. 8). Instead, Plaintiff 

merely said “oral argument requested.” (Doc. 8 at 1). Plaintiff’s proposed form of order 

only adds to the confusion. (Doc. 8-2). The proposed form of Order appears to seek only 

the relief of a TRO, meaning Plaintiff has failed to submit a proposed form of Order for 

the PI portion of the motion. (Id.). Further, the proposed form of Order makes no mention 

of whether Plaintiff anticipates giving Defendants notice, or the Court finding cause for 

not giving notice. (Id.). Most importantly, however, the Court should be able to determine 

the relief sought from the motion itself.

To allow the Court to manage its calendar, and to give Defendants fair notice of 

what remedies the Court is entertaining at any particular hearing, the currently pending 

joint motion for a TRO and PI will be denied, without prejudice. If Plaintiff in fact seeks 

a TRO immediately, Plaintiff must file a motion for a TRO. Plaintiff must indicate whether 

the TRO is being sought on an ex parte basis, and if so, must show why a TRO without 

notice is warranted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1). Further, Plaintiff must 

explain why, if the emergency relief of a TRO is necessary, it took Plaintiff six days from 

when the case was filed to seek the TRO. See generally Oakland Tribune, Inc. v. Chronicle 

Pub. Co. 762 F.2d 1374, 1377 (9th Cir. 1985).

Regardless of whether Plaintiff files a motion for a TRO, if Plaintiff seeks a 

preliminary injunction that would be in place for the duration of this litigation, Plaintiff 

must file a motion specifically seeking a preliminary injunction. Notice of this PI motion 

must be given to Defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(1). The Court will not undertake to 

Case 2:20-cv-00893-JAT Document 9 Filed 05/14/20 Page 2 of 3
- 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

hold a hearing on any request for a PI until Plaintiff files with the Court proof that 

Defendants have been given notice of the motion. Further, any motion for a PI must 

indicate whether Plaintiff seeks an evidentiary hearing on the motion.

Finally, in any re-filed request for a TRO or PI Plaintiff must indicate the amount 

of the bond it will post if a TRO or PI is granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c) (“The court 

may issue a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order only if the movant gives 

security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained 

by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.”) (emphasis added). 

The Court notes that the proposed form of order (Doc. 8-2) seeks to have the bond waived 

for a TRO, but the motion itself makes no argument why such a waiver would be 

appropriate. Further, neither the motion nor the proposed order makes reference to a bond 

for a PI. While Plaintiff may argue to have the bond waived, Plaintiff must nonetheless 

propose a bond amount in the event the Court rejects that argument.

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary 

injunction (Doc. 8) is denied without prejudice.

Dated this 14th day of May, 2020.

Case 2:20-cv-00893-JAT Document 9 Filed 05/14/20 Page 3 of 3