Bidad et al v. City of Santa Rosa et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
RUFUS BIDAD, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF SANTA ROSA, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 26-cv-11780-HSG
ORDER DIRECTING SERVICE OF
TEMPORARY RESTRAING ORDER
AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
MOTION PAPERS AND SETTING
BRIEFING SCHEDULE
Re: Dkt. No. 5
Before the Court is an ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and
preliminary injunction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 filed by pro se non-e-filer
Plaintiffs Rufus Bidad and Ruben Lopez.1 Dkt. No. 5 (“Mot.”). Plaintiffs seek a mandatory
injunction against Defendants2 requiring them to allow Plaintiffs to re-enter the Sam Jones Hall
shelter in Santa Rosa, California, along with other relief. Dkt. 5-1 at 2.
The standard for issuing a temporary restraining order is substantially identical to the rule
for granting a preliminary injunction. Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151, 1159 n.3 (9th Cir.
2017). Preliminary injunctive relief is “an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a
clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense
1 Plaintiffs also name a “John Doe” plaintiff. If this person wishes to proceed under a
pseudonym, he must file a motion justifying why that course of action is warranted.
2 Defendants listed on Plaintiffs’ complaint are: CITY OF SANTA ROSA, a municipal
corporation; CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF NORTHWEST CALIFORNIA, a California nonprofit
corporation; MATTHEW VERSCHEURE, JENNIELYNN HOLMES, KELLI KUYKENDALL,
and SASHA BROWN, inclusive; and DOES 1-20, inclusive. Dkt. No. 1 at 1.
Case 4:26-cv-11780-HSG Document 8 Filed 10/13/26 Page 1 of 3

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22, 24 (2008) (citation omitted). Such an order may be issued only
where the moving party has established: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a likelihood
of irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in
plaintiff’s favor; and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. See id. at 20. Further, a
temporary restraining order may issue without written or oral notice only if (A) specific facts in an
affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or
damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and (B) the
movant’s attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it
should not be required. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A)-(B).
Plaintiffs state that they provided Defendants with notice of this suit and their intent to file
this motion by email, but they do not confirm where they sent these emails. Mot. at 3 (citations
omitted); Dkt. No. 5 (Bidad Decl.) at ¶ 33. They also do not indicate that they actually provided
any of the proposed moving papers to the Defendants.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to serve this Order on Plaintiffs via their emails
listed on the Complaint today, October 13, 2026: samjhoneslawsuit@gmail.com;
rufus.bidad101@gmail.com; and jlopcast01@gmail.com.
By 5:00 p.m. today, October 13, 2026, Plaintiffs are DIRECTED to serve a copy of the
Complaint, Dkt. No. 1, the TRO and supportive documents, Dkt. No. 5, and this Order on
Defendants at a minimum via email. By 11:00 a.m. tomorrow, October 14, 2026, Plaintiffs
SHALL file a declaration confirming that they have done so. Plaintiffs’ declaration SHALL list
the names, titles, and email addresses of all those they served and whether they received a
response.
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
Case 4:26-cv-11780-HSG Document 8 Filed 10/13/26 Page 2 of 3

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Defendants are DIRECTED to file a response to the Motion by 5:00 p.m. on Friday,
October 16, 2026. Plaintiff may file a reply by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, October 19, 2026. The
motion will be deemed submitted at that time unless otherwise ordered by the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge
10/13/2026
Case 4:26-cv-11780-HSG Document 8 Filed 10/13/26 Page 3 of 3