Vitale v. Jordan ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 FRANCESCO VITALE, et al., Case No. 23-cv-01902-JD 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER v. 9 10 BRYAN D. JORDAN, et al., Defendants. 11 12 13 The Court ordered pro se plaintiffs Francesco and Frances Vitale to file a status statement 14 by October 20, 2023, “addressing their failure to timely serve defendants, and their failure to file, 15 or cooperate in the filing of, a case management statement.” Dkt. No. 23 at 2. Plaintiffs filed a 16 case management statement by the deadline, see Dkt. No. 30, but still have not explained their 17 failure to serve. Plaintiffs have also filed a slew of motions, which are denied for the following 18 reasons. 19 Plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order, Dkt. No. 26, is denied under Federal 20 Rule of Civil Procedure 65. Plaintiffs did not offer “specific facts in an affidavit or a verified 21 complaint clearly show[ing] that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to 22 the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition,” or “certif[y] in writing any 23 efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 65(b)(1). Plaintiffs also have failed to show that they are “likely to succeed on the merits, that 25 [they are] likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of 26 equities tips in [their] favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Alliance for the Wild 27 Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Winter v. Natural Res. Def. 1 merits were raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in the plaintiffs favor,” and “that 2 || there is a likelihood of irreparable injury and that the injunction is in the public interest.” Jd. at 3 1135. Plaintiffs’ motion, Dkt. No. 26, is cursory and conclusory, and its deficiencies are not cured 4 || by plaintiffs’ complaint, Dkt. No. 1, which named well over a dozen defendants and is difficult to 5 || follow. 6 The Court previously denied plaintiffs’ motion for lis pendens for lack of good cause. Dkt. 7 || No. 24. Plaintiffs’ “second ex parte application notice of lis pendens,” Dkt. No. 27, is denied for 8 || the same reason. 9 Plaintiffs’ motion for a default judgment, Dkt. No. 29, is denied. No defaults have been 10 || entered on the docket as against any defendant. 11 Plaintiffs’ case management statement, Dkt. No. 30, is accepted. Pursuant to plaintiffs’ 12 || voluntary dismissal with prejudice, Dkt. No. 31, defendants TD Bank Group and Leo Salom have 13 || been terminated from the ECF docket. IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 15 Dated: November 20, 2023 16 Ye JAMES$PPONATO Z 18 Unitedfftates District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28