South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 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 capacity as the Governor of California, et al., Defendants.

17 Plaintiffs South Bay United Pentecostal Church and Bishop Arthur Hodges III filed a motion for temporary restraining order. (ECF No. 12.) On May 15, 2020, the Court held a telephonic hearing on the motion and denied the motion. (ECF No. 32, 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 ordinarily move first in the district court for . . . (C) an order . . . granting an injunction while an appeal is pending.” Fed. R. App. Proc. 8(a)(1). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(d) provides that “[w]hile an appeal is pending from an interlocutory 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 ||an injunction pending appeal is generally the same as the standard for granting a || preliminary injunction. Humane Soc’y of U.S. v. Gutierrez, 523 F.3d 990, 991 (9th || Cir. 2008).

5 Having reviewed Plaintiffs’ arguments, the Court DENIES the instant Motion ||for the same reasons stated on the record at the telephonic hearing on Plaintiffs’ ||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