South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom

[7] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT [8] SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [9] 10 SOUTH BAY UNITED Case No. 20-cv-865-BAS-AHG PENTECOSTAL CHURCH, et al., 11 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ Plaintiffs, EX PARTE MOTION FOR AN 12 INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL v. 13 [ECF No. 36] GAVIN NEWSOM, in his official 14 capacity as the Governor of California, et al., [15] Defendants. [16] 17 Plaintiffs South Bay United Pentecostal Church and Bishop Arthur Hodges III 18 filed a motion for temporary restraining order. (ECF No. 12.) On May 15, 2020, the 19 Court held a telephonic hearing on the motion and denied the motion. (ECF No. 32, 20 38 (transcript of hearing).) That same day, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. 21 Plaintiffs also filed an ex parte motion seeking an injunction pending the appeal. 22 (ECF No. 36.) 23 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(a)(1) provides that “[a] party must 24 ordinarily move first in the district court for . . . (C) an order . . . granting an injunction 25 while an appeal is pending.” Fed. R. App. Proc. 8(a)(1). Federal Rule of Civil 26 Procedure 62(d) provides that “[w]hile an appeal is pending from an interlocutory 27 order or final judgment that grants, dissolves, or denies an injunction, the court may | ||secure the opposing party’s rights.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(d). The standard for granting 2 ||an injunction pending appeal is generally the same as the standard for granting a 3 || preliminary injunction. Humane Soc’y of U.S. v. Gutierrez, 523 F.3d 990, 991 (9th 4 || Cir. 2008). 5 Having reviewed Plaintiffs’ arguments, the Court DENIES the instant Motion 6 ||for the same reasons stated on the record at the telephonic hearing on Plaintiffs’ 7 ||motion for temporary restraining order. (See ECF No. 38.) 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 || DATED: May 18, 2020 / . 10 (Yin 4 (Bashan. 6 11 Usited Viates District Judge