Rodriguez et al v. State of Oregon et al, No. 6:2023cv01863 - Document 48 (D. Or. 2024)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 46 is DENIED. This denial is without prejudice to any request for a preliminary injunction. Signed on 4/15/2024 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (ck)

Download PDF
Rodriguez et al v. State of Oregon et al Doc. 48 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON EUGENE DIVISION MARTIN RODRIGUEZ; BRITNI RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiffs, Civ. No. 6:23-cv-01863-MK OPINION & ORDER v. STATE OF OREGON; SALEM POLICE DEPARTMENT; MARION COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; MARION COUNTY JUSTICE COURT; MARION COUNTY; CITY OF SALEM, Defendants. _______________________________________ AIKEN, District Judge. This case comes before the Court on a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, ECF No. 46, filed by pro se Plaintiffs Martin Rodriguez and Britni Rodriguez. Plaintiffs seek to enjoin non-party DoubleTree by Hilton from proceeding with an eviction of Plaintiffs from a hotel in Salem, Oregon. Plaintiffs also seek to enjoin Defendant Marion County Sheriff’s Department from carrying out a writ of execution for the eviction of Plaintiffs from the hotel. This motion is suitable for resolution without oral argument. Local Rule 7-1(d)(1). For the reasons set forth below, the motion is DENIED. Page 1 –OPINION & ORDER Dockets.Justia.com “In deciding whether to grant a motion for a temporary restraining order (‘TRO’), courts look to substantially the same factors that apply to a court’s decision on whether to issue a preliminary injunction. Pacific Kidney & Hypertension LLC v. Kassakian, 156 F. Supp.3d 1219, 1222 (D. Or. 2016). A preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008). A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must show (1) that he or she is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) he or she is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) the balance of the equities tips in his or her favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. Id. at 20. In the Ninth Circuit, courts may apply an alternative “serious questions” test which allows for a preliminary injunction where a plaintiff shows that “serious questions going to the merits” were raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in plaintiff’s favor, assuming the other two elements of the Winter test are met. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131-32 (9th Cir. 2011). This formulation applies a sliding scale approach where a stronger showing on one element may offset a weaker showing in another element. Id. at 1131. Nevertheless, the party requesting a preliminary injunction must carry its burden of persuasion by a “clear showing” of the four elements set forth above. Lopez v. Brewer, 680 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2012). The Court has reviewed the filings in this case and concludes that Plaintiffs have not carried their burden and have failed to make the showing necessary to Page 2 –OPINION & ORDER support the extraordinary and drastic remedy of a TRO. Plaintiffs’ Motion, ECF No.46, is therefore DENIED. This denial is without prejudice to any request for a preliminary injunction. It is so ORDERED and DATED this 15th day of April 2024. /s/Ann Aiken ANN AIKEN United States District Judge Page 3 –OPINION & ORDER

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.