O 11

22

33

44 55 66 77

88 United States District Court 99 Central District of California

1100

1111 S.M. et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-05353-ODW (ASx)

1122 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING TEMPORARY 1133 v. RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 1144 THE REGENTS OF THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. et 1155 al., SHOULD NOT ISSUE [2]

1166 Defendants. 1177 1188 Plaintiffs S.M., Tene Medford Carr, and John Medford initiated this action 1199 asserting constitutional violations and seeking an emergency injunction preventing 2200 Defendant The Regents of the University of California from imminently removing life 2211 sustaining medical support from minor Plaintiff S.M. (See Compl., ECF No. 1; Ex 2222 Parte Appl. (“TRO”), ECF No. 2.) Plaintiff S.M. is the fourteen year-old daughter of 2233 Plaintiffs Tene Medford Carr and John Medford. S.M. went into cardiac arrest on 2244 June 11, 2020, and was admitted to Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center. S.M. is 2255 currently on life support which is sustaining her heart and lung function. 2266 Dr. Anil Sapru, Division Chief of Pediatric Medicine for Defendants, informed 2277 Plaintiffs that S.M. is legally brain dead, that Dr. Sapru will be performing an apnea 2288 test on June 16, 2020, and will be removing all life support on June 17, 2020, at 2 p.m. 1 (TRO 4; Decl of Justin A. Palmer (“Palmer Decl.”) ¶ 6, ECF No. 2-1.) Plaintiffs’ 2 counsel subsequently filed a supplemental declaration stating that he was informed 3 life support would be removed at 12:00 p.m. on June 17, 2020. (Suppl. Decl. Justin 4 A. Palmer ¶ 3, ECF No. 7.) Plaintiffs are currently pursuing treatment options, 5 including regenerative medicine techniques with Dr. Alice Pien. Plaintiffs began a 6 novel Regenerative Medicine treatment on June 14, 2020; Dr. Pien advises that she 7 requires at least thirty days to monitor S.M.’s response to these treatments and observe 8 her results. (Palmer Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. B.) 9 Accordingly, on June 16, 2020, Plaintiffs initiated the instant action and filed an 10 ex parte application for a temporary restraining order enjoining Defendants from 11 removing S.M.’s life support measures. (See TRO.) Plaintiffs provided Defendant 12 with notice of this action and of the instant application. (Palmer Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A.) 13 The Court ordered Defendants to file any response no later than 11:00 a.m. on June 14 17, 2020. (Order, ECF No. 10.) The Court received no response from Defendants by 15 that time. 16 The standard for issuing a temporary restraining order is “substantially 17 identical” to that for issuing a preliminary injunction. Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. 18 John D. Brush & Co.,

, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001). Pursuant to Federal Rule 19 of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 65, a court may grant preliminary injunctive relief to 20 prevent “immediate and irreparable injury.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). In the Ninth 21 Circuit, a plaintiff must demonstrate “serious questions going to the merits, and a 22 balance of hardships that tips sharply towards the plaintiff can support issuance of a 23 preliminary injunction, [provided] that there is a likelihood of irreparable injury and 24 that the injunction is in the public interest.” All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632

(9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). 26 In light of the immediacy of irreparable harm to Plaintiffs pending the Court’s 27 review of the case’s constitutional questions, the Court finds a temporary restraining 28 order warranted. Plaintiffs face the imminent irreparable harm of S.M.’s death, harm 1 || for which there can be no reversal or adequate compensation. Thus, the balance of hardships also tips sharply in their favor. Plaintiffs pose serious constitutional 3 || questions concerning their rights as parents to make medical decisions for their minor child and consistent with their religious beliefs. (See Compl.) The public interest will 5 || be served by consideration of these questions on their merits. 6 Accordingly, and in light of the immediacy of irreparable harm to Plaintiffs 7 || pending the Court’s review of the case’s merits, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ ex 8 || parte application for a temporary restraining order. (ECF No. 2.) Defendants are 9|| hereby ENJOINED from ending life sustaining medical support for the minor 10 | Plaintiff S.M. 11 IT IS ORDERED that Defendant SHOW CAUSE on July 1, 2020, at 11:00 12 || a.m., in the courtroom of the Honorable Otis D. Wright II, located in Courtroom 5D at 13 || 350 W. Ist Street, Los Angeles, California 90012, why a preliminary injunction 14 || should not issue enjoining Defendants from removing Plaintiff S.M.’s life support 15 || measures, for a period of thirty days or until the present lawsuit is resolved. 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, should Plaintiffs wish to supplement their 17 || application, they must do so on or before June 22, 2020. Should Defendants wish to 18 || submit an opposition brief in advance of the hearing on the Order to Show Cause, it 19 || must do so on or before June 26, 2020. Plaintiffs shall not file any responsive 20 | pleadings, but may address any arguments raised in Defendants’ supplemental 21 || opposition at the hearing. 22 23 IT ISSO ORDERED. 24 25 June 17, 2020 26 . ig Giedliod 28 OTIS D. WRIGHT, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE