1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Case No.: 25cv3505 DMS BLM JORGE ARTURO ARMENTA-

12 ROSALES; CUBERTO CHAVEZ ORDER GRANTING PETITIONERS’ ABARCA; ORLANDO SEGURA 13 EX PARTE MOTION FOR ERAZO; MARIO IGNACIO MONTES TEMPORARY RESTRAINING 14 ROCHA; MARCOS ANTONIO ORDER PINEDA; RODOLFO VILLANUEAVA- 15 CONTRERAS, 16 17 Petitioners, v. 18 KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S. 19 Department of Homeland Security; et al. 20 Respondents. 21 22 This case comes before the Court on Petitioners’ ex parte motion for a temporary 23 restraining order (“TRO”). Respondents filed an opposition to the motion, Petitioners filed 24 a reply and a Notice of New Authority, and Respondents filed a Supplemental Brief. 25 The New Authority is an order issued by the United States District Court for the 26 Central District of California in Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, Case No. 5:25-cv- 27 01873-SSS-BFM, granting in part and denying in part the petitioners’ ex parte application 28 for reconsideration or clarification. In the order, the court granted the petitioners’ request 1 ||for entry of final judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), and 2 ||subsequently entered that judgment. Maldonado Bautista, ECF No. 94.' In light of the 3 ||entry of judgment, Respondents acknowledge Petitioners are entitled to a bond hearing 4 ||pursuant to

(a). Accordingly, the Court grants Petitioners’ ex parte 5 || application fora TRO. Respondents are directed to arrange an individualized bond hearing 6 ||for Petitioners before an immigration court within seven (7) days of this Order. On or 7 |\|before December 29, 2025, the parties shall file a Joint Status Report confirming 8 || Petitioners have been provided with those bond hearings. In that Report, the parties shall 9 provide their respective positions on whether a further order on the Petition is 10 ||necessary or if the case may be dismissed as moot. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 ||Dated: December 19, 2025 13 2 nnn Salo Hon. Dana M. Sabraw United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 |} 27 ||! Subsequent to entry of judgment, the respondents in Maldonado Bautista filed a Notice of Appeal. 9g ||However, the Ninth Circuit has held the filing of an appeal does not suspend the preclusive effect of a lower court judgment. Hawkins v. Risley,

(9" Cir. 1993) (citations omitted).