2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 KATHERINE RIVAS ESCOBAR, Case No. 2:22-cv-01099-RFB-VCF

7 Plaintiff, ORDER

8 v.

9 THE TJX COMPANIES, INC.,

10 Defendant.

11 12 Plaintiff filed the Complaint (ECF No. 1) and Emergency Motions for Temporary 13 Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunctive Relief (ECF Nos. 3, 6) on July 11, 2022. Plaintiff’s 14 Complaint alleges a single claim for declaratory relief pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 15

. The Court incorporates by reference the factual allegations as set forth in the 16 Complaint. For the reasons stated herein, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motions. 17 Plaintiff alleges that she is an asylum seeker with work authorization in the United States. 18 In her injunctive motions, she claims that her employer, Defendant The TJX Companies (“TJX”), 19 will be terminating her employment on July 12, 2022, under the allegedly mistaken belief that her 20 work authorization expires on that date. Plaintiff argues her work authorization does not expire 21 until 2024. She claims that she sought renewal of her employment authorization on April 25, 2022 22 with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), and that under existing 23 Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) policy, her work authorization was automatically 24 extended. Plaintiff alleges that without a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunctive 25 relief, she will suffer irreparable harm in the form of losing her job. Plaintiff seeks an ex parte 26 order from this Court declaring that her employment authorization does not expire on July 12, 27 2022, and enjoining TJX from terminating her. 28 / / / 2 moving party: (1) provides a sworn statement clearly demonstrating “that immediate and 3 irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard 4 in opposition,” and (2) sets forth the efforts made to notify the opposing party and why notice 5 should not be required. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1). TROs issued without notice “are no doubt 6 necessary in certain circumstances, but under federal law they should be restricted to serving their 7 underlying purpose of preserving the status quo and preventing irreparable harm just so long as is 8 necessary to hold a hearing, and no longer.” Reno Air Racing Ass'n v. McCord,

, 9 1131 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters,

, 10

,

(1974)). The analysis for a temporary restraining order is 11 “substantially identical” to that for a preliminary injunction. Stuhlbarg Intern. Sales Co, Inc. v. 12 John D. Brush & Co., Inc.,

, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001). To obtain a preliminary 13 injunction, a plaintiff must establish four elements: “(1) a likelihood of success on the merits, (2) 14 that the plaintiff will likely suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, (3) that the 15 balance of equities tips in its favor, and (4) that the public interest favors an injunction.” Wells 16 Fargo & Co. v. ABD Ins. & Fin. Servs., Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2014), as amended

, 2014) (citing Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc.,

(2008)). 18 The Court finds that Plaintiff cannot establish a likelihood of success on the merit. First, 19 the Court notes that the Complaint asserts a single declaratory judgment claim, untethered to any 20 other substantive claim. However, it is well-established that the Declaratory Judgment Act does 21 not create a standalone cause of action. See Franchise Tax Bd. of State of Cal. V. Constr. Laborers 22 Vacation Trust for S. Cal.,

(1983) (“The operation of the Declaratory Judgment Act 23 is procedural only.”); Fiedler v. Clark,

(9th Cir. 1983) (“The Declaratory Judgment 24 Act does not provide an independent jurisdictional basis for suits in federal court. . . . It only 25 permits the district court to adopt a specific remedy when jurisdiction exists.”). Second, and 26 relatedly, Plaintiff has not set forth a cognizable claim against TJX. Plaintiff’s exhibits reveal that 27 part of the reason why Defendant seeks to terminate her on July 12, 2022 is because she has not 28 provided certain proof that she requested a renewal of work authorization – specifically, she has 2 her failure to provide this document is due to delays and difficulties reaching USCIS. Yet, Plaintiff 3 has not identified a cognizable claim arising from these delays with USCIS which could create 4 liability for TJX. In light of these two deficiencies, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not 5 demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. 6 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Emergency Motions for Temporary Restraining 7 Order and Preliminary Injunctive Relief (ECF Nos. 3, 6) are DENIED. 8 9 DATED: July 11, 2022. 10 11 12 13 RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28