Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00972/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00972-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
California Department of Veterans Affairs
Defendant
Larry Tevis
Plaintiff
Nancy Tevis
Plaintiff

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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY TEVIS and NANCY TEVIS,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CAL VET, aka and dba CALIFORNIA 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS

Defendant.

No. 2:15-cv-972-TLN-GGH-S

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

APPLICATION FOR TRO

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Larry Tevis and Nancy Tevis’s (“Plaintiffs”) 

Application for Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 2). The Court has carefully considered 

Plaintiffs’ motion. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs’ application is hereby DENIED.

Plaintiffs’ complaint stems from the bankruptcy court’s disposition of Plaintiffs’ Chapter 

13 bankruptcy. According to the Complaint, Defendant Cal Vet (“Defendant”) “violated the 

Settlement and the Plaintiffs’ Bankruptcy Chapter 13 Plan.” (ECF No. 1 at ¶ 30.) In response, 

Plaintiff filed an Adversary against Defendant and was granted a restraining order to stop 

Defendant from taking possession of Plaintiffs’ residence. (ECF No. 1 at ¶ 31.) On or about

April 2015, the bankruptcy court ordered the Adversary be dismissed and ordered that Defendant 

could “take action to take possession of Plaintiffs’ residence.” (ECF No. 1 at ¶ 32.) Plaintiffs 

filed the instant action on May 5, 2015, alleging ten causes of actions against Defendant and 

Case 2:15-cv-00972-TLN-GGH Document 4 Filed 05/06/15 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

subsequently filed a motion for temporary restraining order. (ECF No. 2.)

A temporary restraining order is an extraordinary and temporary “fix” that the court may 

issue without notice to the adverse party if, in an affidavit or verified complaint, the movant 

“clearly show[s] 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)(1)(A). The purpose of 

a temporary restraining order is to preserve the status quo pending a fuller hearing. See Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 65. It is the practice of this district to construe a motion for temporary restraining order as 

a motion for preliminary injunction. Local Rule 231(a); see also Aiello v. One West Bank, No. 

2:10–cv–0227–GEB–EFB, 2010 WL 406092 at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2010) (“Temporary 

restraining orders are governed by the same standard applicable to preliminary injunctions.”) 

(internal quotation and citations omitted).

Therefore, the party requesting injunctive relief must show that “he is likely to succeed on 

the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the 

balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. 

Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Although pro se pleadings are liberally 

construed, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520–21 (1972), they are not immune from the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995). The 

propriety of a request for injunctive relief hinges on a significant threat of irreparable injury that 

must be imminent in nature. Caribbean Marine Serv. Co. v. Baldridge, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th 

Cir. 1988). 

Alternatively, under the so-called sliding scale approach, as long as the plaintiff 

demonstrates the requisite likelihood of irreparable harm and can show that an injunction is in the 

public interest, a preliminary injunction may issue so long as serious questions going to the merits 

of the case are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in plaintiff’s favor. Alliance for 

Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131–36 (9th Cir. 2011) (concluding that the “serious 

questions” version of the sliding scale test for preliminary injunctions remains viable after 

Winter).

Here, Plaintiffs’ motion fails to meet the requisite standard. First, the motion itself does 

Case 2:15-cv-00972-TLN-GGH Document 4 Filed 05/06/15 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

not show that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their case. In fact, Plaintiffs fail to 

offer any legal support for their motion and instead says that this Court must grant relief to 

prevent Plaintiffs from becoming homeless. (ECF No. 2 at 2.) Although the Court is empathetic 

to Plaintiffs’ situation, the Court cannot grant relief without a legal basis for doing so. Plaintiffs’ 

assertion that they will lose their residence is not enough to grant relief. Second, in essence 

Plaintiffs are asking this Court to issue an order staying the bankruptcy court’s order. This Court 

cannot do so. Should Plaintiffs wish to challenge the bankruptcy court’s ruling, they must follow 

the appropriate procedure and appeal the bankruptcy court’s ruling.

For the above reasons, Plaintiffs’ Application for Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 

2) is hereby DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 6, 2015

Case 2:15-cv-00972-TLN-GGH Document 4 Filed 05/06/15 Page 3 of 3