Thames
Chadley Wayne Thames, et al. v. Mendocino Coast Humane Society, et al.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 CHADLEY WAYNE THAMES, et al., Case No. 25-cv-09341-WHO
Plaintiffs,
ORDER DENYING TEMPORARY
v. RESTRAINING ORDER AND
SCREENING COMPLAINT
MENDOCINO COAST HUMANE SOCIETY, et al., Dkt. No. 15 11 Defendants.
12 Plaintiff Chadley Wayne Thames has filed a second motion for a Temporary Restraining 13 Order, seeking return of his service dog. Dkt. No. 15. The motion is DENIED for the reasons 14 discussed below.
I. MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
16 A Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) “is not a preliminary adjudication on the merits, 17 but a device for preserving the status quo and preventing the irreparable loss of rights before 18 judgment.” Textile Unlimited, Inc. v. A..BMH & Co., 240 F.3d 781, 786 (9th Cir. 2001). A TRO 19 may continue only until a hearing on a motion for preliminary injunction can be heard. Pablo Sequen v. Kaiser, 793 F. Supp. 3d 1114, 1118 (N.D. Cal. 2025).1 21 The emergency Thames continues to identify is the return of his emotional support…