above, the District Court reneged on its initial determination to grant the preliminary injunction by indicating that a “definitive ruling” would be made after further evidence by the School District was submitted. No preliminary injunction was signed despite the District Court’s prior statement that it would do so. Thus, assuming arguendo that a temporary restraining order was granted at the September 15, 2004 hearing, the District Court would have granted the temporary restraining order only to preserve the status quo — i.e., permit the Students to continue attending school — until after the presentment of further evidence on the merits of the Students’ claims to determine the propriety of granting their request for a preliminary injunction. See Christopher P., 915 F.2d at 805 (<HOLDING>). Under the circumstances, any temporary.
holding temporary restraining order void for lack of requirement of separate bond holding injunction was proper after state court entered a temporary restraining order against defendants many of whom were also defendants in a federal multidistrict action because the restraining order would interfere with the multidistrict courts ability to dispose of the action before it holding that plaintiffs cannot be said to have prevailed on the basis of the temporary restraining order because it simply preservefd the status quo by directing the state of connecticut to readmit plaintiff to its school holding that because the order lacked an independent basis it was an abuse of discretion to issue the mutual restraining order holding temporary restraining order void because court waived bond