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
United States District CourtFor the Northern District of CaliforniaIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LaRELL FRANKLIN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ALLSTATE CORPORATION et al.,
Defendants.
/
No. C-06-1909 MMC
ORDER DEFERRING RULING ON
PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION
FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER
(Docket No. 3)
Before the Court is plaintiffs’ ex parte application for temporary restraining order and
motion for preliminary injunction, filed March 13, 2006. Pursuant to Rule 65(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court may issue a temporary restraining order
ex parte only under very limited circumstances:
A temporary restraining order may be granted without written or oral notice to
the adverse party or that party's attorney only if (1) it clearly appears from the
specific facts shown by affidavit or by the verified complaint that immediate
and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the applicant before the
adverse party or that party's attorney can be heard in opposition, and (2) the
applicant's attorney certifies to the court in writing the efforts, if any, which
have been made to give the notice and the reasons supporting the claim that
notice should not be required.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). Plaintiffs have not submitted the requisite certification as to the
efforts made to provide notice to defendants of the instant application or the reasons why
such notice should not be required.
Case 3:06-cv-01909-MMC Document 7 Filed 03/14/2006 Page 1 of 2
Franklin et al v. Allstate Corporation et al
Doc. 7
Dockets.Justia.com
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
Accordingly, the Court will defer ruling on the instant application until Friday,
March 17, 2006, to afford plaintiffs the opportunity to serve the defendants and file proof of
such service, or to file the cer