United States District CourtFor the Northern District of California1
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
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CESSNA EMPLOYEES CREDIT UNION, et
al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
LORIMAC, INC.,
Defendant.
/
No. C 07-00120 JSW
ORDER DENYING
APPLICATION FOR A
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER AND REQUEST FOR
APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER
Now before the Court are Plaintiffs’ ex parte application for a temporary restraining and
request for an appointment of a receiver. To date, Defendant has not filed any opposition.
Nevertheless, having carefully considered Plaintiffs’ application, and finding this application
suitable for disposition without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-6, the Court denies
the application because Plaintiffs have failed to make an adequate showing, supported by
admissible evidence, of immediate irreparable harm necessitating the issuance of a TRO and
further have failed to demonstrate the need to preserve the status quo pending final resolution.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b).
First, it is not clear that Plaintiffs provided Defendant with notice of its ex parte
application and request for the appointment of a receiver or that Plaintiffs had a sufficient
justification for not providing such notice. The Local Rules require that “[u]nless relieved by
order of a Judge for good cause shown, on or before the day of an ex parte motion for a
temporary restraining order, counsel applying for the temporary restraining order must deliver
Case 3:07-cv-00120-JSW Document 19 Filed 01/16/2007 Page 1 of 3
Cessna Employees Credit Union et al v. Lorimac Inc.
Doc. 19
Dockets.Justia.com
United States District CourtFor the Northern District of California1
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
notice of such motion to opposing counsel or party.” N.D. Civil Local Rule 65-1(b). The Court
may issue a