Hipp v. The City of Vallejo

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted four unhoused plaintiffs’ ex parte application for a temporary restraining order against the City of Vallejo. The order enjoins the City from evicting the plaintiffs from their temporary residences pending a hearing on a preliminary injunction, based on irreparable harm, the balance of hardships, the public interest, and serious questions concerning alleged failures to provide reasonable accommodations under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court waived the bond requirement and set the preliminary-injunction hearing for July 11, 2025.

Holdings

1. Plaintiffs were entitled to a temporary restraining order under the serious-questions test because they demonstrated likely irreparable harm, a balance of hardships sharply in their favor, serious questions concerning their claims, and that the public interest favored relief.
2. Plaintiffs demonstrated serious questions concerning whether the City violated Title II of the ADA by failing to provide reasonable accommodations or communicate with plaintiffs about their disability-related accommodation requests before proceeding with the planned evictions.
3. No bond was required because the record did not indicate that the City would suffer damages from the short delay in eviction proceedings.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiffs satisfied the requirements for an ex parte temporary restraining order preventing the City from evicting them from their temporary residences.
2. Whether plaintiffs demonstrated serious questions on the merits of their Title II ADA reasonable-accommodation claims.
3. Whether a bond should be required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c).

Disposition

other