Opinion
No. CV 11-8042-PCT-JAT.
June 30, 2011
ORDER
The Court has reviewed the third amended complaint and finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded jurisdiction. Thus, the Court will take no further action regarding jurisdiction. This conclusion is without prejudice to Defendants raising any jurisdictional issue that they deem appropriate.
Plaintiff has also moved for a temporary restraining order, seeking to enjoin Defendants and a state court judge from moving forward with a forcible detainer action. Doc. 12. Plaintiff has offered no reason why the Court should consider the request for temporary restraining order without giving notice to Defendants. Accordingly, the Court will take no action on the motion for temporary restraining order until Plaintiff either serves Defendants, or gives Defendants some other form of notice regarding the temporary restraining order. If Plaintiff gives Defendants notice other than formal service of the temporary restraining order, Plaintiff shall file a notice with this Court indicating exactly how and when notice was given to Defendants.
The Court reached this same conclusion in the Order of June 2, 2011.
Although Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 requires only that notice be given of a request for a temporary restraining order, Plaintiff must still serve Defendants with the summons and third amended complaint within the time limits set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).
Based on the foregoing,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff shall provide notice to Defendants of the pending motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. 12) before the Court takes any action on the motion.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in responding to the motion for temporary restraining order, Defendants shall address the issues raised in Chapman v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., No. 10-15215 (9th Cir. June 23, 2011).