Federal judge issues temporary restraining order preserving Lladk's life for 30 days
After the 30-day temporary restraining order there will be further proceedings. The family is required to post a $1,500 bond. Anyone who wishes to help defray costs can donate directly to their GoFundMe page (https://www.gofundme.com/f/justice-for-lladk).
--
Restraining order text:
ORDER: In deciding whether to grant a motion for a TRO, courts look to substantially the same factors that apply to a court's decision on whether to issue a preliminary injunction. See Stuhlbarg Int'l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001). A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction generally must show that: (1) 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 equities tips in his or her favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Nat. Res. Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). The Ninth Circuit utilizes the "serious questions" test. All for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131-32 (9th Cir. 2011). Under this test, " 'serious questions going to the merits' and a hardship balance that tips sharply toward the plaintiff can support issuance of an injunction, assuming the other two elements of the Winter test are also met. Id. at 1132.
The Court finds that Plaintiffs have presented "serious questions going to the merits" on at least some of the claims presented in their complaint. Importantly, Plaintiffs have shown significant, irreparable harmthe euthanasia of Plaintiffs' dog and emotional support animal. The Court also finds that the balance of hardships tips in favor of Plaintiffs. While the County has housed the dog for six-months, euthanizing the dog would be irreversible and limit Plaintiffs' remedies. Clackamas County can reasonably house the dog for a short while longer while the Court resolves Plaintiffs' forthcoming Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Finally, the Court finds that issuing a TRO is in the public interest. The public has an interest in ensuring the safety of children, but also in ensuring that the process used by Defendants to deem animals dangerous and order their euthanasia is lawful and does not violate the rights of persons with disabilities.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order [5]. Clackamas County is RESTRAINED and ENJOINED from euthanizing or causing to be euthanized Lladk, an approximately four-year-old Alaskan Malamute canine owned by Plaintiffs, until further order of the Court. This restraining order will remain in effect until the conclusion of the preliminary injunction hearing to be set at a later date.
The Court DIRECTS Plaintiffs to post a $50 bond with the Clerk of Court no later than 4:30 p.m. on January 13, 2021, and on everyday thereafter as long as this Temporary Restraining Order is in place. The Court DIRECTS the parties to confer and submit a joint proposed briefing schedule and times for a hearing on the Preliminary Injunction by January 14, 2021. Ordered by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (jp)