From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Henson v. McKinley Trailer Vill.

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 30, 2021
2:21-cv-02189 WBS AC (E.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2021)

Opinion

2:21-cv-02189 WBS AC

11-30-2021

TOM HENSON, Plaintiff, v. MCKINLEY TRAILER VILLAGE, an Unknown Entity Type; THE KAUR GROUP, LLC, a California Limited Liability Corporation; NITA DENHOY, an individual; BALWANT S. DENHOY, an individual, Defendants.


ORDER RE: MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

WILLIAM B. SHUBB UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Tom Henson filed this action on November 24, 2021 alleging various state and federal claims against defendants based on the alleged failure to pay wages and alleged retaliation against him for seeking these wages, including charging him an excessively high monthly “space rent” for his trailer home which is located in the McKinley Trailer Village. (Docket No. 1.) Plaintiff then moved for a temporary restraining order on November 26, 2021, seeking to enjoin defendants from terminating plaintiff's residency at the McKinley Trailer Village pending this suit. (Docket No. 3.)

The court notes that defendants have served two 15-day notices to pay or quit on plaintiff. One of these notices was served on or about October 14, 2021, and defendants did not take action on this notice, purportedly because of discussions between counsel for plaintiff and counsel for defendants. (Docket No. 3-2 ¶ 27.) The second notice was served on or about November 12, 2021 (Docket No. 3-2 ¶ 28), and thus the deadline on that one appears to have passed on November 27, 2021. However, counsel for both sides have been in discussions since at least about October 12, 2021, and plaintiff's counsel was told as early as November 18, 2021 that defendants would not withdraw the second 15-day notice. (Docket No. 3-3 ¶¶ 7-14.)

Notwithstanding these ongoing communications, plaintiff's counsel waited until the Wednesday before Thanksgiving, almost a week later, to file the complaint, and then the Friday after Thanksgiving to file the motion for a temporary restraining order. Further, in assessing the immediacy of the threatened injury and irreparable harm the court cannot ignore the fact that plaintiff's mobile home, which has been in place since 1968 (Docket No. 3-2 ¶ 2), almost certainly cannot be simply moved immediately.

Under these circumstances, plaintiff has not shown specific facts clearly showing that immediate and irreparable injury will result before defendants can be heard in opposition. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 65 (b)(1)(A); see also Lydo Enters. v. City of Las Vegas, 745 F.2d 1211, 1213 (9th Cir. 1984) (delay in seeking preliminary injunction is a factor to be considered in weighing the propriety of relief, because “[b]y sleeping on its rights a plaintiff demonstrates the lack of need for speedy action” (citations omitted)); E.D. Local Rule 231(b) (court will consider whether applicant seeking a temporary restraining order “could have sought relief by motion for preliminary junction at an earlier date without the necessity for seeking last-minute relief by motion for temporary restraining order, ” and undue delay may constitute grounds to deny the request).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order (Docket No. 3) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.


Summaries of

Henson v. McKinley Trailer Vill.

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 30, 2021
2:21-cv-02189 WBS AC (E.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2021)
Case details for

Henson v. McKinley Trailer Vill.

Case Details

Full title:TOM HENSON, Plaintiff, v. MCKINLEY TRAILER VILLAGE, an Unknown Entity…

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Nov 30, 2021

Citations

2:21-cv-02189 WBS AC (E.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2021)