Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01844/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01844-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:2241fd Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)

---

1 

19cv1844-LAB (JLB)

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

BRENDA CAROLINA PARROSALES, and ETHAN JAFETH 

PAR, minor child, 

Petitioners, 

v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, et al., 

Respondents. 

 Case No.: 19cv1844-LAB (JLB) 

ORDER REQUIRING 

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING 

AND STATUS UPDATE 

 Petitioners, who are represented by counsel, today filed a motion for a 

temporary restraining order (TRO),1

 asking the Court to enjoin Respondents from 

removing them following proceedings that were scheduled to take place today. 

 Petitioners are Guatemalan nationals who entered the United States through 

Mexico, seeking asylum here. The TRO motion says Petitioners were first 

scheduled to appear before an Immigration Judge on August 12, but after they 

                                               

1 Petitioners submitted a habeas petition and motion for temporary restraining 

order (TRO). Due to a docketing error, the two were filed under separate case 

numbers; the petition is filed in case 19cv1844. The Court will treat both as part 

of this case, and anticipates that the docketing error will be corrected shortly. 

Case 3:19-cv-01844-LAB-JLB Document 3 Filed 09/27/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

19cv1844-LAB (JLB)

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

retained counsel, their hearing was continued to today. The motion says 

Petitioners fear being sent back to Mexico and required to restart the asylum 

process there. Petitioners’ predictions about what is likely to happen following their 

hearing is based on information they have known about, or could have learned 

about earlier. There may be a reason why Petitioners waited until literally the last 

moment to file their petition and seek a TRO, but the motion does not explain it. 

 Without giving any dates or times, the motion says Petitioners’ counsel 

attempted to contact a DHS attorney but could not reach him because he was in 

court at the time. It says she then mailed him, and perhaps also the local U.S. 

Attorney’s office, giving information about this petition. As of the time the motion 

was filed, Petitioner’s counsel had not received a reply. The U.S. Attorney has, 

however, filed a notice saying the motion will be opposed as soon as Respondents’ 

counsel can obtain the necessary records. 

 Only in the rarest of circumstances is it appropriate to issue a TRO without 

affording opposing parties a chance to be heard. Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. 

Brotherhood of Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423, 438–39 (1974). Although Fed. R. Civ. P. 

65(b)(1) deals with situations where the opponent has no notice, the notice 

requirement is intended to give opponents a meaningful opportunity to be heard. 

See id. at 432 n.7 (“The notice required by Rule 65(a) before a preliminary 

injunction can issue implies a hearing in which the defendant is given a fair 

opportunity to oppose the application and to prepare for such opposition.”). Here, 

Respondents would be unable to even formulate a response on the very short 

notice they were given. The last-minute filing also makes it unnecessarily difficult 

for the Court to conduct a meaningful review of the voluminous filings before 

having to make a decision. 

While there may be legitimate reasons Petitioners waited until the last 

moment to seek relief, the motion does not explain what those are. The same 

rationale for requiring notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard also argue 

Case 3:19-cv-01844-LAB-JLB Document 3 Filed 09/27/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

19cv1844-LAB (JLB)

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

against allowing parties to benefit by their own unexplained delay in seeking a 

TRO. 

The Court’s brief initial review of the TRO motion shows that factors set forth 

in Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) are inadequately 

addressed, and requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 are not fully met. If the Court 

were to rule on the motion today, it would be denied. The Court will defer a decision 

on the TRO motion until the government has an opportunity to respond. 

Petitioners’ counsel shall supplement the TRO motion by filing a brief not 

longer than ten pages (not counting any attached or lodged materials), addressing 

in greater detail the factors set forth in Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 

555 U.S. 7 (2008), and providing anything required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 that 

the initial TRO motion left out. The brief must clearly show that the Court has 

jurisdiction to grant the relief requested. They should do so as promptly as they 

can. 

After Petitioners’ counsel files their supplemental brief, Respondents may file 

their opposition within three court days. Besides anything else Respondents wish 

to include, the opposition must address jurisdiction. No reply brief is to be filed 

without leave, and the Court will set a hearing, if appropriate. 

The parties must also file a notice explaining the outcome of today’s hearing, 

and its effect on the availability of or need for immediate relief. If possible they 

should file a joint notice not longer than ten pages. But if they cannot, each side 

should file a notice not longer than five pages. The notice or notices should be filed 

as promptly as possible, but in any event no later than September 30. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 26, 2019 

 Hon. Larry Alan Burns 

Chief United States District Judge 

Case 3:19-cv-01844-LAB-JLB Document 3 Filed 09/27/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3