The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 2:24-cv-04353-JLS-PD Date: May 30, 2024
Title: Jeffrey Little v. Los Angeles County Fire Department et al
Present: Honorable JOSEPHINE L. STATON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Charles Rojas N/A
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendant:
Not Present Not Present
PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (Doc. 12.)
Before the Court is Plaintiff Jeffrey Little’s ex parte application for a temporary
restraining order. (TRO, Doc. 12; Mem., Doc. 12-1.) For the reasons explained below,
Little’s ex parte application is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Little works in the Lifeguard Division of the Los Angeles County Fire
Department. (Compl., Doc. 1 ¶¶ 10, 15.) In March 2023, the Los Angeles County Board
of Supervisors passed a motion that, among other things, “[d]irected the Chief Executive
Officer to work with all County Departments to explore ways the Progress Pride Flag can
be shown at all county facilities.” (Id. ¶ 17.) The Fire Department implemented that
motion by issuing EA-231, a memorandum that requires the Progress Pride Flag to be
flown, where feasible, at Fire Department facilities during the month of June. (Id. ¶ 19.)
“The views commonly associated with the Progress Pride Flag . . . are in direct
conflict” with Little’s religious beliefs, and those beliefs dictate that Little cannot be
“responsible for raising the Progress Pride Flag.” (Id. ¶¶ 4, 23.) On May 24, 2024, Little
______________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 2:24-cv-04353-JLS-PD Date: May 30, 2024
Title: Jeffrey Little v. Los Angeles County Fire Department et al
filed this action against the Fire Department and several Fire Department officials. (See
Compl.) Then on May 28, 2024, Little filed an ex parte application for a temporary
restraining order (“TRO”). (See TRO.) The TRO seeks to restrain Defendants from
requiring Little to: “(1) personally raise the Progress Pride Flag; or (2) ensure raising the
Progress Pride Flag.” (Id. ¶ 1; accord Proposed Order, Doc. 12-3 ¶ 1.)
In a declaration supporting the TRO application, Little’s counsel states and
attaches emails reflecting that Little had an interactive process meeting scheduled for
May 29, 2024, with a human resources officer to discuss a potential religious
accommodation. (Jonna Decl., Doc. 12-2 ¶ 7; Scheduling Emails, Ex. U to Doc. 12-2.)
The declaration also states that Little intends to have the TRO application “personally
serv[ed] . . . on the Los Angeles County Fire Department and the Los Angeles County
Counsel, and then fil[e] a proof of service showing when that was done.” (Id. ¶ 9.)
As of the evening of May 30, 2024, Little has not apprised the Court of the
outcome of his interactive process meeting with the human resources officer. Nor does
the docket show that the TRO application has been served on Defendants.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Like a preliminary injunction, a temporary restraining order is “an extraordinary
remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to
such relief.” See Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008). To obtain
a TRO, a plaintiff “must establish [1] that he is likely to succeed on the merits, [2] that he
is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, [3] that the
balance of equities tips in his favor, and [4] that [a TRO] is in the public interest.” Id.
This “requires the plaintiff to make a showing on all four prongs.” Alliance for the Wild
Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011).
______________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 2:24-cv-04353-JLS-PD Date: May 30, 2024
Title: Jeffrey Little v. Los Angeles County Fire Department et al
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, the Court may issue a TRO without
notice to the Defendants only if (1) “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 (2) “the [movant]
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).
III. ANALYSIS
Little’s TRO application is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
First, the Court cannot conclude on the record before it that Little is “likely to
suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 22
(emphasis added). Of particular relevance, Little and his counsel had an interactive
process meeting with a human resources officer yesterday to discuss a potential religious
accommodation—a meeting that could moot Little’s request for preliminary relief.
(Jonna Decl. ¶ 7; Scheduling Emails.) But as of the time of this Order, Little has not
apprised the Court of the outcome of that meeting.
Second, as of the time of this Order, the docket does not reflect that Defendants
have been served with the TRO application. (See Jonna Decl. ¶ 9 (stating that Little had
not yet provided notice of the TRO and that he would “fil[e] a proof of serve showing
when that was done”).) Nor does Little attempt to meet the requirements of Rule 65 for
obtaining a TRO without notice to Defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1).
IV. CONCLUSION
Little’s TRO application is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Little may file a
renewed application if he (1) includes updated materials apprising the Court of the
outcome of the May 29, 2024, interactive process meeting, and (2) provides notice to
______________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 2:24-cv-04353-JLS-PD Date: May 30, 2024
Title: Jeffrey Little v. Los Angeles County Fire Department et al
Defendants. If a renewed application is filed and served on Defendants, the Court will
afford Defendants 24 hours from the time of service to respond. (See Judge Staton
Procedures Page § 3.)
Initials of Deputy Clerk: cr
______________________________________________________________________________