1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROSA AGUILAR-PEREZ, Case No.: 25cv3409-LL-DDL

12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING IN PART 13 v. PETITIONER’S EX PARTE MOTION FOR TEMPORARY 14 CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, Warden of RESTRAINING ORDER Otay Mesa Detention Center, et al., 15 Respondents. [ECF No. 3] 16

17 This case comes before the Court on Petitioner’s

Petition and ex 18 parte motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”). ECF Nos. 2, 3. On December 15, 19 2025, Respondents filed a Return. ECF No. 7. On December 19, 2025, Respondents filed 20 a Supplemental Response to the Petition, in which they “acknowledge that Petitioner is 21 detained under

(a) and is entitled to an order from this court directing a 22 bond hearing to be held pursuant to

(a). ECF No. 8. 23 Respondents’ Supplemental Response is filed in light of the new authority in 24 Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, Case No. 5:25-cv-01873-SSS-BFM, granting in part and 25 denying in part the petitioners’ ex parte application for reconsideration or clarification. In 26 the order, the court granted the petitioners’ request for entry of final judgment pursuant to 27 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), and subsequently entered that judgment. Maldonado 28 1 || Bautista, ECF No. 94.! In light of the entry of judgment, Respondents acknowledge 2 || Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing pursuant to

(a). Accordingly, the 3 || Court grants in part Petitioner’s ex parte application for a TRO. Respondents are directed 4 || to arrange an individualized bond hearing for Petitioner before an immigration court within 5 ||seven (7) days of this Order. On or before January 5, 2026, the parties shall file a Joint 6 || Status Report confirming Petitioner has been provided with a bond hearing. 7 || IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 || Dated: December 22, 2025 NO 9 DE 10 Honorable Linda Lopez 1 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ||] 27 |! Subsequent to entry of judgment, the respondents in Maldonado Bautista filed a Notice of Appeal. 3g 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,

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