Opinion
4:22-cv-02847
09-14-2022
NRT Texas LLC d/b/a Coldwell Banker Realty and Coldwell Banker, Realtors, Plaintiff, v. Jennifer Wilbur, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ON REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TRO
Yvonne Y. Ho United States Magistrate Judge
As noted in the Order granting Plaintiff's motion for a continuance of the preliminary injunction hearing, the Court requested an expedited response from Defendants Jennifer Wilbur, Taffie Dolson, Catherine Johnson, and Linda Sheinall (“Individual Defendants”) to Plaintiff's additional request for an extension of the TRO. Dkt. 29 (granting in part Dkt. 23). Individual Defendants have responded, arguing that the report and recommendation to grant in part, and deny in part, Plaintiff's motion for a TRO is not itself a TRO, and that only a district judge has authority to issue a TRO. Dkt. 30 at 2-4.
Individual Defendants are correct. A TRO is a form of injunctive relief. When, as here, a request for TRO is referred to a magistrate judge, Dkt. 10, a magistrate judge can issue a report that recommends the issuance of a TRO. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), (B). The ultimate decision of whether a TRO is appropriate rests in the hands of the district judge, who will decide whether to accept, reject, or modify the report and recommendation. Id. § 636(b)(1)(C). Because that determination has yet to occur, no TRO is currently in place, and thus there is no TRO to extend. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff's request to extend the TRO be DENIED as premature.
In the interim, Individual Defendants maintain that they are conforming their conduct to the parameters specified in the recommended TRO. Dkt. 30 at 2-3. Failure to do so would be at Individual Defendants' own peril.
It is further ORDERED that the preliminary injunction hearing is scheduled as follows:
September 29, 2022
9:00 a.m.
Courtroom 704