MINUTE ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on April 8, 2026: Pending the Court's decision on the petition, and unless and until the Court orders otherwise, the Court ORDERS that Respondents shall not transfer Petitioner out of this District. See F.T.C. v. Dean Foods Co., 384 U.S. 597, 604 (1966) (noting court's "express authority under the All Writs Act to issue such temporary injunctions as may be necessary to protect its own jurisdiction"). (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk FMN)

On April 8, 2026, Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean issued a minute order preventing respondents from moving the petitioner outside the court's district. The order remains in effect until the court resolves the pending petition or issues a contrary directive.

Judge Grosjean invoked the All Writs Act, citing the Supreme Court's decision in F.T.C. v. Dean Foods Co., 384 U.S.

597, 604 (1966), which authorizes courts to issue temporary injunctions to protect their jurisdiction. This move signals the court's intent to maintain control over the petitioner’s location to ensure it can effectively adjudicate the matter before it.

The order does not specify the nature of the petition or the underlying dispute, nor does it identify the parties beyond the generic labels "petitioner" and "respondents." The court docket and jurisdiction remain unspecified in the public record. The procedural posture suggests the petitioner seeks relief that could be undermined if relocated, prompting the court to act preemptively.

This kind of injunction is a common tool to prevent parties from frustrating judicial authority by moving individuals or assets beyond the court's reach. The reference to the All Writs Act shows the court’s reliance on its inherent powers to preserve the status quo. The absence of additional filings or motions limits insight into the broader context or stakes involved.

The case remains active, with no further public orders or filings available as of now. The court’s decision on the petition will determine whether this preliminary injunction remains or is lifted. The order’s narrow scope focuses solely on geographic restrictions pending resolution, reflecting a cautious approach to jurisdictional control.

Observers should watch for the court’s ruling on the petition itself, which will clarify the underlying dispute and the court’s ultimate stance on the petitioner’s status and location. Until then, respondents must comply with the transfer ban, ensuring the petitioner stays within the district.