Summary
The United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted a limited temporary restraining order preventing the defendants from removing Jane Doe from the United States or the district pending further order. The court found that a temporary stay was appropriate to preserve the status quo while it considered jurisdiction and converted the scheduled motion hearing into a counsel-only status conference. The court waived the bond requirement.
Holdings
- A federal district court may temporarily preserve the status quo, including by staying removal, while determining whether it has subject matter jurisdiction and while the underlying petition remains pending.
- A limited-duration temporary restraining order barring defendants from removing plaintiff was warranted to maintain the status quo pending the court's hearing and further order.
- The court could dispense with a bond because the record did not indicate that the temporary stay was likely to harm defendants.
Questions Presented
- Whether the court could temporarily enjoin defendants from removing plaintiff while determining whether it had subject matter jurisdiction over the case.
- Whether a limited-duration temporary restraining order was appropriate to preserve the status quo pending a hearing and reasoned decision.
- Whether the court should require plaintiff to post a bond for the temporary restraining order.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (6)
- Brownback v. King, 592 U.S. 209, 218-19 (2021)(followed)
- United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 628 (2002)(followed)
- United States v. United Mine Workers of Am., 330 U.S. 258, 293 (1947)(followed)
- Belbacha v. Bush, 520 F.3d 452, 456 (D.C. Cir. 2008)(followed)
- Garcia-Izquierdo v. Gartner, No. 04-CV-7377 (RCC), 2004 WL 2093515, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 17, 2004)(followed)
- Gorbach v. Reno, 219 F.3d 1087, 1092 (9th Cir. 2000)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…