throbber
Case 2:20-cv-01160-MV-CG Document 15 Filed 11/10/20 Page 1 of 3
`
`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
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket