Arizona Recovery Housing Association v. Arizona Department of Health Services

1 WO 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Arizona Recovery Housing Association, No. CV-20-00893-PHX-JAT 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. Arizona Department of Health Services, et al., Defendants.

15 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for TRO. (Doc. 11). The Court ordered Plaintiff to supplement the motion to explain exactly when adverse action would be taken against Plaintiff. (Doc. 12). Plaintiff timely supplemented and indicated it seeks to have the TRO issued by May 19, 2020, but provided no support for what specifically would occur on that date that justified a TRO.

20 As the Court previously noted, Plaintiff delayed 6 days from when it filed this case to when it filed its request for a TRO. Now, Plaintiff seeks to require Defendant to respond to the TRO request in what amounts to one business day. On this record, Plaintiff has not proven an urgency that would necessitate such a result. See e.g. Martin v. Family Lending Servs., No. 09-CV-2133-PHX-ROS, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100453, at *3 (D. Ariz. Oct.

25 15, 2009) (citation omitted) (noting that a plaintiff may not create her own emergency to circumvent the notice requirement in seeking a TRO). Similar to Martin, the Court finds Plaintiff cannot create its own emergency and deprive Defendants of a reasonable time to respond.

1 Thus, the Court will give Defendants the same six days to respond that Plaintiff || needed to file the TRO. If specific, imminent action is threated against Plaintiff, Plaintiff 3|| may file a request to accelerate briefing. But on this record, Plaintiff has not shown imminent action is threatened.

5 In their response, Defendants must address: 1) the arguments made in Plaintiff’s || motion and supplement; 2) whether (and when) action may be taken against Plaintiff (and 7\| specify what action(s) might be taken); 3) whether the issues raise in the TRO are || remediable by money damages; and 4) what bond amount Defendants seek if a TRO is 9|| granted.

10 Based on the foregoing, 11 IT IS ORDERED Defendants shall respond to the Motion for TRO (Doc. 11) by May 20, 2020. Plaintiff shall reply by May 21, 2020.

13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Clerk of the Court shall re-docket Doc. 14 as a □□ supplement to Doc. 11, rather than a motion.

15 Dated this 15th day of May, 2020.

17 A James A. Teilborg 19 Senior United States District Judge _2-