`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
`
`
`
`
`
`STAMPEDE MEAT, INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`Civil No. 20-cv-1160 MV/CG
`
`vs.
`
`
`MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, in her official
`capacity as GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF
`NEW MEXICO, HECTOR BALDERAS, in his
`official capacity as the ATTORNEY GENERAL
`FOR THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO, BILLY
`J. JIMENEZ, in his official capacity as the
`ACTING CABINET SECRETARY OF THE
`NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,
`JAMES C. KENNEY, in his official capacity as
`the CABINET SECRETARY OF THE
`NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENT
`DEPARTMENT, THE NEW MEXICO
`ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT and THE
`NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`
`THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff Stampede Meat, Inc.’s Emergency
`
`Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and Declaratory Judgment (the
`
`“Motion”) [Doc. 10]. The Court finds it appropriate to set an expedited briefing schedule on the
`
`Motion, rather than issue an emergency order on an ex parte basis.
`
`On October 22, 2020, the Department of Health, through Defendant Jimenez and under
`
`authority provided by Defendant Lujan Grisham, issued a Public Health Order stating, inter alia,
`
`that any “business that poses a significant public health risk, as determined by the Department of
`
`Health” must close for a period of two weeks when four employees receive positive rapid
`
`response COVID-19 tests within a rolling 14-day period. Doc. 10 at 10. Between October 23,
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-01160-MV-CG Document 15 Filed 11/10/20 Page 2 of 3
`
`2020 and October 27, 2020, Plaintiff had six rapid responses related to COVID-19 infections.
`
`Doc. 10 at 128. On November 3, 2020, Defendants served Stampede Meat with a “Notice of
`
`Immediate Closure Pursuant to Public Health Order” (“Stampede Closure Order”), in which
`
`Plaintiff was directed to “immediately close all business operations . . . for fourteen consecutive
`
`calendar days in accordance with the Public Health Order issued October 22, 2020.” Doc. 10 at
`
`128.
`
`On November 6, 2020, Plaintiff commenced the instant action by filing its Verified
`
`Complaint and Application for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief. Doc. 1. On
`
`November 9, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion, asking the Court to issue an emergency
`
`order, without notice to Defendants, restraining Defendants from the following: (1) enforcing the
`
`October 22, 2020 Order against Plaintiff; (2) enforcing the November 3, 2020 Stampede Closure
`
`Order; and (3) issuing any fine for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Defendants’ orders.
`
`This Court is authorized to issue a temporary restraining order “without written or oral
`
`notice to the adverse party or its attorney” only if two conditions are met: (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’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). In support of its argument that “no further
`
`notice is warranted,” Plaintiff states only that “all Defendants have been served” with the
`
`Complaint. Doc. 10. There, however, is no record on the docket that any Defendant has been
`
`served with the Complaint. Nor does the Court find that service of the Complaint alone would
`
`satisfy the requirement that the movant’s attorney certify efforts made to give notice of the relief
`
`requested in the instant Motion and why that notice should not be required. Further, as the
`
`Stampede Closure Order was in effect for six days before Plaintiff filed the instant Motion, the
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-01160-MV-CG Document 15 Filed 11/10/20 Page 3 of 3
`
`Court finds that the facts in the Complaint do not clearly show that immediate and irreparable
`
`injury, loss, or damage will result to Plaintiff before Defendants can be heard in opposition. The
`
`Court thus finds no grounds to issue an order on an emergency basis without providing
`
`Defendants with an opportunity to respond. It will, however, order an expedited briefing
`
`schedule on Plaintiff’s Motion.
`
`IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
`
`1. Plaintiff must effect service of a copy of this Order, together with Plaintiff’s Emergency
`Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction and Declaratory
`Judgment [Doc. 10], and Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint and Application for Declaratory
`Judgment and Injunctive Relief [Doc. 1], and any attachments thereto, to be received by
`Defendants no later than 5:00 p.m. Mountain Standard Time (MST) on Tuesday,
`November 10, 2020, notwithstanding any previous attempts made by Plaintiff to serve
`Defendants. Proof of any service done pursuant to this Order shall be filed with the Clerk of
`Court as soon as practicable.
`
`2. If Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s Motion, a written response shall be filed with the Court and
`served on Plaintiff no later than Monday, November 16, 2020 at 5:00 p.m. MST.
`
`3. Plaintiff’s reply, if any, shall be filed with the Court and served on Defendants no later than
`Wednesday, November 18, 2020 at 5:00 p.m. MST.
`
`4. The Court will set a hearing on this matter if it finds that such a hearing is necessary.
`
`DATED this 10th day of November 2020.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MARTHA VÁZQUEZ
`United States District Judge
`
`