Noem

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Patricia Augusta HETZEL SILVA, et al., Case No.: 25-cv-3515-AGS-BLM Plaintiffs ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

v.

ORDER (ECF 3)

Kristi NOEM, et al., Defendants. 8 Plaintiffs request a temporary restraining order precluding defendants from “arresting, detaining, or initiating removal proceedings against Plaintiffs at their scheduled I-485 interview[s].” (ECF 3, at 5.) Because Plaintiffs fail to establish that they are likely to suffer imminent harm, their motion is denied. Rather than contend with the merits of the claim, defendants assert that “the Court lacks jurisdiction to issue a temporary restraining order,” because plaintiffs have not properly “[s]erved” defendants. (ECF 6, at 2.) After all, service is typically a precondition to exercising personal jurisdiction. See Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 350 (1999) (noting that one “becomes a party officially, and is required to take action in that…