Case 2:11-cv-04466-JAK -OP Document 50
Filed 06/24/11 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:2087
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No.
LA CV11-04466 JAK (OPx)
Title
La Cuna de Aztlan Sacred Sites Protection Circle Advisory Committee, et al.
Present: The Honorable
Date
June 24, 2011
JOHN A. KRONSTADT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Andrea Keifer
Not Reported
Deputy Clerk
Court Reporter / Recorder
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
Attorneys Present for Defendants:
Not Present
Not Present
Proceedings:
(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ RENEWED APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING ISSUANCE OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [39]
The Court has considered Plaintiffs’ Renewed Application for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”). On June 13, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a request for a temporary restraining order. This Court denied that Request with the proviso that “[i]f through new, substantial evidence not previously available to plaintiffs, they can demonstrate a substantial basis for TRO relief prior to the July 5, 2011 hearing, and further, if plaintiffs can adequately explain their six-month delay in seeking such emergency relief, this order does not bar a new application for a TRO prior to July 5, 2011.” Plaintiffs filed this Renewed Application for a TRO on June 22, 2011, in which they argue that an access road defendants have already built traverses a plot of land outside the approved project boundaries. As evidence, Plaintiffs offer a color copy of the map attached to the Notice to Proceed issued to Defendants in November of 2010. Plaintiffs claim that they did not receive a color copy of the map until June 17, 2011, so until that time, they did not realize that the access road was located outside the project boundaries. The color map in question is currently publicly available online, although there is incomplete evidence with respect to how long it has been available online. As stated in this Court’s June 15, 2011 Order, “[t]he standard for granting a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) is identical to that for a preliminary injunction.” Arakaki v. Cayetano, 198 F. Supp. 2d 1165, 1173 (D. Haw. 1999). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008). Although a plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must address each of these factors, the Ninth Circuit applies a “sliding scale” approach in which “a stronger showing of one element may offset a weaker showing of another.” Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131-35 (9th Cir. 2011). As with their previous application for a TRO, Plaintiffs have offered no evidence that they will suffer irreparable harm if their request for a TRO is denied. They state that "continued use of the access road will harm Plaintiffs." They fail to demonstrate that the continued use of the access road, which was in use before Plaintiffs received their color copy of the Notice to Proceed, poses any immediate risk of CV-90 (10/08)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 2
Case 2:11-cv-04466-JAK -OP Document 50
Filed 06/24/11 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:2088
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No.
LA CV11-04466 JAK (OPx)
Date
June 24, 2011
Title
La Cuna de Aztlan Sacred Sites Protection Circle Advisory Committee, et al.
irreparable harm to any of the sites at issue in this litigation between now and the July 5, 2011 hearing on their motion for preliminary injunctive relief. Further, plaintiffs have not presented any evidence that any other changes to, or uses of, the land in question are now in place, or will be in place, prior to July 5, 2011, when the Court will conduct the hearing on their request for preliminary injunctive relief. Accordingly, no basis for the requested temporary relief has been established on this alternative ground. Finally, Plaintiffs attempt to address their delay in seeking a TRO by explaining that they believed construction would not begin in earnest until March of this year and that they have been denied access to the construction site in recent months. These reasons are not adequate to justify the six-month delay. IT IS SO ORDERED.
: Initials of Preparer
CV-90 (10/08)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
ak
Page 2 of 2