George v. Grossmont Cuyamaca Community College District Board Of Governors

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JUDY GEORGE, et al., Case No. 22-cv-0424-BAS-BLM 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER: 13 v. 1) CONVERTING APPLICATION GROSSMONT CUYAMACA FOR A TEMPORARY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT 15 RESTRAINING ORDER TO BOARD OF GOVERNORS, et al., MOTION FOR A Defendants. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 17 [ECF No. 40]; 2) SETTING HEARING ON 19 PENDING MOTIONS FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS 21 [ECF Nos. 40, 76]

Plaintiffs bring this action to invalidate vaccine mandates adopted in fall of 2021 by three California Community College Districts (“CCDs”)—San Diego Community College District (“SDCCD”), South Orange County Community College District (“SOCCCD”), and Grossmont Cuyamaca Community College District (“GCCCD”).

1 Specifically, Plaintiffs launch a myriad of constitutional challenges against the CCDs’ requirements that their employees and students be fully vaccinated and boosted against COVID-19 or establish entitlement to one of two eligible exemptions—including a religious exemption—and the frameworks employed to decide accommodations for exemptions (collectively, “CCD Vaccine Requirements”).

6 Three months after filing their Complaint in March 2022, Plaintiffs moved ex parte for a temporary restraining order on June 20, 2022, seeking to enjoin the CCDs from enforcing their Vaccine Requirements. (TRO App., ECF No. 40.) In accordance with this Court’s June 23, 2022 Order (ECF No. 42), Defendants opposed on July 11, 2022 (ECF No. 68) and Plaintiffs replied on July 20, 2022 (ECF No. 71).

11 Given the notice and opportunity to oppose provided to Defendants, the Court CONVERTS the TRO Application to a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.1 Voth v. Mills, No. CV 09-424-HA, 2010 WL 1640401, at *1 (D. Or. Apr. 19, 2010).

14 The Court further ORDERS the parties to appear in person for oral argument on Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 40) and Defendants’ pending Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 76) on Wednesday, November 2, 2022, at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 4B. See Civ. L.R. 7.1(d)(1).

18 At the hearing, the parties should be prepared to discuss, inter alia, discrete issues bearing upon whether Plaintiffs are likely to suffer irreparable harm absent preliminary relief. This includes any changes since July 11, 2022 to: (1) the CCD’s respective Vaccine Requirements; (2) Plaintiffs’ exempt status; and (3) Plaintiffs’ accommodations, namely, the requirements Plaintiffs Dora Meza (SDCCD) and Patricia Sparks (GCCD) wear face In converting Plaintiffs’ TRO Application to a Motion for a preliminary injunction, the Court notes that Plaintiffs held their request for pre-trial relief in abeyance for approximately seven months after the last CCD issued a Vaccine Requirement and three months after filing their Complaint. This unexplained delay belies the notion there exist exigent circumstances warranting a TRO. Whirlpool Corp. v. Marshall, 445 U.S. 1, 20 n.33 (1980) (instructing TROs are reserved for “emergency situations”) “Delays of one month or more are common grounds for denying motions for temporary restraining orders.

27 UnifySCC v. Cody, No. 22-cv-01019-BLF, 2022 WL 686310, at *2 (Mar. 8, 2022) (denying plaintiffs’ application for a TRO against defendant county’s workplace COVID-19 vaccine mandate because ||coverings and that Plaintiffs Jess Perez and Paul Bonkowski (both SOCCCD) submit to ||antigen testing twice weekly on account of their status as exempt and unvaccinated |}employees.

4 IT IS SO ORDERED. / , || DATED: October 27, 2022 Ypilag (Lyohaa 6 6 United States District Judge