Summary
The United States Magistrate Judge recommends denying Galina V. Andreyev’s motion for a temporary restraining order seeking immediate access to her elderly mother. The recommendation concludes that the motion failed to satisfy the notice and proposed-order requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1) and Eastern District of California Local Rule 231. The parties were advised that objections may be filed within 14 days.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order could be granted when she failed to provide notice to the affected parties or explain why notice should not be required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1)(B).
- Whether Plaintiff's failure to submit documents required by Eastern District of California Local Rule 231 warranted denial of the temporary restraining order.
Holdings
- A temporary restraining order without notice may not issue when the movant does not provide notice to the affected parties, make reasonable efforts to provide notice, or explain why notice should not be required as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1)(B).
- Failure to comply with the local rule governing temporary restraining orders, including the requirements to provide notice and submit required proposed orders and supporting documents, independently justified denial of the motion.
Key quotations
“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1) permits the court to issue a TRO without notice to the adverse party only if (1) specific facts in the affidavit or underlying pleading show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result before the opposing party may be heard; and (2) the movant certifies in writing efforts made to give notice and the reasons why notice should not be required.” (at 3)
“The Court therefore recommends denial of Plaintiff’s temporary restraining order motion based on these procedural deficiencies.” (at 4)
Factual background
Plaintiff alleged that she held a power of attorney for her mother, witnessed abuse and improper medication of her mother, and was denied access to her mother by private caregivers. She alleged that a temporary conservatorship had invalidated her power of attorney and that county protective-services and sheriff's personnel failed to investigate abuse reports or enforce court orders. Plaintiff claimed that she had been isolated from her mother for more than twenty-two months and sought immediate access through a temporary restraining order.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed the complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis on May 16, 2025. Defendants Marcella and Igor Trotsiouk moved to dismiss for insufficient service of process, but the motion was denied as premature. Plaintiff then moved for a temporary restraining order, and the district judge referred that motion to the magistrate judge for findings and recommendations.
Remand instructions
The findings and recommendations were submitted to the assigned district judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The parties were given fourteen days after service to file objections and fourteen days thereafter for replies.