Case Name: M. R.; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Susan DREYFUS, in her professional capacity as Secretary of Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, and Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, a Department of the State of Washington, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-01-14
Citations: 735 F.3d 1058
Docket Number: No. 11-35026
Parties: M. R.; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Susan DREYFUS, in her professional capacity as Secretary of Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, and Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, a Department of the State of Washington, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 735
Pages: 1058–1059

Head Matter:
M. R.; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Susan DREYFUS, in her professional capacity as Secretary of Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, and Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, a Department of the State of Washington, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-35026.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Jan. 14, 2011.
Stephen P. Berzon, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Stacey Leyton, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Matthew John Murray, San Francisco, CA, Andrea Brenneke, MacDonald Hoague & Bayless, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
M. R., pro se.
AN. B., pro se.
A. R., pro se.
J. H., pro se.
Andrea Brenneke, pro se.
Anne E. Egeler, Assistant Attorney General, Edward J. Dee, Senior, William Bruce Work, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Washington Attorney General, Olympia, WA, for Defendants-Appel-lees.
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
Appellants' motion to file an oversized emergency motion is granted. Appellees' motion to file an oversized opposition to the emergency motion is granted. Appel-lees' motion to strike the reply brief is denied.
Appellants' emergency motion for in-junctive relief comes to us in the context of an appeal of the district court's denial of a temporary restraining order ("TRO"). Because the district court took the hearing for the motion for preliminary injunction off calendar, the denial of the TRO is tantamount for present purposes to the denial of a motion for preliminary injunction. Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Andrus, 625 F.2d 861 (9th Cir.1980).
Appellants' motion for a stay prohibiting the State of Washington from implementing emergency regulation WSR 11-02-041 is granted pending the district court ruling on appellants' motion for preliminary injunction. See Cal. Pharmacists Ass'n v. Maxwell-Jolly, 563 F.3d 847, 849-50 (9th Cir.2009) (order). Here, instead of proceeding with the preliminary injunction hearing, the district court cancelled that hearing. No other relief is available that will remedy the irreparable injury which continues to occur pending such hearing.
The briefing schedule established previously is vacated.