Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01445/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01445-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Preston DuFauchard
Counter Claimant
Pioneer Military Lending of Nevada, Inc.
Counter Defendant
Pioneer Military Lending, Inc.
Counter Defendant

Document Text:

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PIONEER MILITARY LENDING, INC.;

and PIONEER MILITARY LENDING

OF NEVADA, INC.,

NO. CIV. S-06-1445 LKK/PAN

Plaintiffs,

v.

PRESTON DUFAUCHARD, Commissioner,

Department of Corporation, State

of California,

Defendant.

 /

ORDER EXTENDING TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

On July 3, 2006, after hearing oral argument, Judge William

B. Shubb entered a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) against the

defendants in this matter and scheduled the preliminary injunction

hearing for July 13, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. before the undersigned.

////

////

////

Case 2:06-cv-01445-LKK -EFB Document 37 Filed 07/11/06 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

1 “A district court is permitted to extend a TRO for 'a like

period' if 'good cause' is shown. The Supreme Court has

interpreted the phrase 'a like period' as permitting a court to

extend the TRO for 'up to an additional 10 days.'" In re Criminal

Contempt Proceedings Against Gerald Crawford, Michael Warren, 329

F.3d 131, 136 (2nd Cir. 2003)(citing Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v.

Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 70, 415

U.S. 423, 440 n. 15 (1974)).

2 See State of Maine v. Fri, 483 F.2d 439, 441 (1st Cir.

1973)("as long as the hearing on the preliminary injunction is held

expeditiously within the appropriate time frame, the district court

should be able to extend the restraining order while it prepares

its decision."); United States v. PATCO, 527 F.Supp. 1344, 1347,

n. 1 (N.D. Ill. 1981)(District Court relies upon above quoted

language from Fri to justify a brief, two day extension of a

Temporary Restraining Order in order that the status quo could be

preserved, while the decision on the Plaintiff's Motion for

Preliminary Injunction was being prepared). See also 11A Charles

Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and

Procedure § 2953 (citing Fri to support the proposition that,

despite the language of Rule 65(b), courts have some limited

discretion to extend a Temporary Restraining Order beyond a second

ten-day period).

2

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a TRO: 

shall expire by its terms within such time after entry,

not to exceed 10 days, as the court fixes, unless within

the time so fixed the order, for good cause shown, is

extended for a like period or unless the party against

whom the order is directed consents that it may be

extended for a longer period.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b).1 See Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc. 285 F.3d

801, 804 (9th Cir. 2002)(citing rule). 

For good cause shown (in order to allow the court time to

adequately prepare for the preliminary injunction hearing),2 the

court hereby ORDERS as follows:

1. The TRO, issued on July 3, 2006, shall continue in effect

until July 23, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. (or until the court issues its

order on the motion for preliminary injunction, whichever occurs

Case 2:06-cv-01445-LKK -EFB Document 37 Filed 07/11/06 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

3

first).

2. The preliminary injunction hearing scheduled for July 13,

2006 at 10:00 a.m. is CONTINUED to July 20, 2006 at 2:00 p.m.

3. No further briefing by the parties shall be entertained.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: July 11, 2006

Case 2:06-cv-01445-LKK -EFB Document 37 Filed 07/11/06 Page 3 of 3