UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

DAVID SAMBRANO ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

v. No. 4:21-cv-1074-P

UNITED AIRLINES, INC.,

Defendant.

ORDER EXTENDING 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Extend Temporary 

Restraining Order, filed October 21, 2021. ECF No. 82. The Court 

initially held a hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Temporary 

Restraining Order (ECF No. 5) on September 24, 2021. See ECF No. 10. 

At this hearing, the Parties reached an agreement that obviated the 

need for the Court to then rule on the Motion. See ECF No. 28. The Court 

thus deferred ruling on Plaintiffs’ Motion at that time. See id.

The Court then set Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction for

a hearing on October 8, 2021. Id. The day before that hearing, however,

United filed a Partial Motion to Dismiss, alleging the Court lacked 

personal jurisdiction over claims raised by several Plaintiffs against 

United. See ECF No. 47. To permit Plaintiffs reasonable time to respond 

to United’s jurisdictional challenge, the Court set an expedited briefing 

scheduling and reset the evidentiary hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for 

Preliminary Injunction to October 13, 2021. ECF No. 49.

Then, on October 12, 2021, the Court concluded it was necessary to 

issue a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) to avoid the risk of 

irreparable injury and to maintain the status quo in this case pending 

the Court’s hearing and resolution of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary 

Injunction. See ECF No. 66. Specifically, the Parties stipulated on 

September 24, 2021, that United would temporarily refrain from placing 

Case 4:21-cv-01074-P Document 95 Filed 10/25/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID 3624
2

exempted employees on leave due to their lack of compliance with 

United’s vaccine mandate. As detailed in the Court’s TRO, and further 

clarified in the Court’s October 18, 2021 Order, the TRO merely 

extended the Parties’ stipulated agreement pending a decision on 

whether a preliminary injunction was warranted. See ECF Nos. 66, 72.

Then, on October 20, 2021, the Court issued a Mediation Order that 

appointed Hon. Kent Hance, Chancellor-Emeritus, as Lead Mediator 

and Hon. Royal Furgeson (Ret.), Dean-Emeritus, as Local Mediator, and 

required the Parties to attend a mediation by October 26, 2021. ECF 

No. 81. This Mediation Order also requires the Parties to file a Joint 

Mediation Report by October 29, 2021, at 12:00 p.m. to apprise the Court 

of the Parties’ progress towards settlement and lingering issues that 

remain in front of the Court after the mediation, if any. See id. 

The Court may extend the TRO for up to an additional 14 days “for 

good cause shown” and for longer periods upon the consent of the 

Parties. See FED. R. CIV. P. 65(b). The rule does not define “good cause.” 

See id. There are few decisions meaningfully applying this standard. 

While there is a dearth of case law commenting on “what constitutes 

‘good cause’ for purposes of extending a Rule 65(b) order, a showing that 

the grounds for originally granting the temporary restraining order 

continue to exist should be sufficient.” See 11A Charles A. Wright, 

Arthur R. Miller, Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure

§ 2953 pp. 311–12 (2013). 

Here, the reasons that necessitated the initial TRO remain.1

Specifically, the Court seeks to maintain the status quo that the Parties 

voluntarily stipulated to at the September 24, 2021 hearing, and that 

was then preserved by the TRO issued on October 12, 2021. See ECF 

Nos. 28, 66. And while the Court has since held an evidentiary hearing 

on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, the Court has not yet 

1The Court acknowledges receipt of United’s Advice to the Court (ECF No. 94), filed 

on October 25, 2021, that attempts to address an issue raised at the Preliminary 

Inunction hearing regarding the indefinite nature of United’s unpaid leave policy for 

exempted employees. As United submitted this filing on the eve of mediation, the Court 

will await the Joint Mediation Report to determine whether United’s update to its 

policy affects the outcome of the pending motions.

Case 4:21-cv-01074-P Document 95 Filed 10/25/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID 3625
3

issued a ruling on this Motion. See ECF No. 28. Further, the Parties 

have not yet attended the mediation ordered by the Court on 

October 20, 2021. ECF No. 81. Accordingly, it is unclear which issues, if 

any, will remain for the Court to decide after mediation is completed.

Thus, if the TRO expires without an injunction in place, whether 

agreed to by the Parties at mediation or ordered by the Court, nothing 

would prevent hundreds of workers from ostensibly either: (1) being 

compelled to take a vaccination in violation of their religious beliefs or 

medical restrictions, or (2) being placed on indefinite unpaid leave. 

Further, if the TRO expires by its original terms on October 26, 2021, 

the Parties’ ability to proceed with the mediation in good faith would be 

undermined. Finally, without the benefit of the Joint Mediation Report, 

the Court cannot ascertain what issues presented in the Motion, if any, 

remain to be decided. The Court thus concludes that good cause exists 

to extend the TRO.

Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Extend 

Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 82) should be and is 

GRANTED. It is therefore ORDERED that the Temporary Restraining 

Order issued by the Court on October 12, 2021 (ECF No. 66), as clarified 

on October 18, 2021 (ECF No. 72), is EXTENDED for the first time for 

a period of 14 days. The Temporary Restraining Order will expire on 

Monday, November 8, 2021, at 4:00 p.m. See FED. R. CIV. P. 65(b)(2). 

SO ORDERED on this 25th day of October, 2021.

Mark T. Pittman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:21-cv-01074-P Document 95 Filed 10/25/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID 3626