SAN JOSE >> A Santa Clara County Superior Court judge denied the Valley Transportation Authority’s bid for a temporary restraining order to stop the ongoing strike Monday but granted an order requiring the union to appear in court and explain why their strike is legal, according to court documents.

Amalgamated Transit Union Local 265 has entered its second week of striking after negotiations fell apart over issues of higher pay and guaranteed arbitration earlier this month, with a few sessions of mediation and negotiation resulting in little progress toward a resolution late last week and over the weekend. VTA filed the lawsuit on the first day of the strike claiming that the union violated a “no strike” clause in the previous collective bargaining agreement, while the union maintains that previous agreement expired and the clause no longer applies.

Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Daniel T. Nishigaya granted the VTA’s application for an order to show cause — summoning union representatives to appear at a hearing to explain why the injunction should not be issued, according to court documents. The ruling comes as no further negotiations have taken place between the two sides since the weekend, according to ATU Local 265 President Raj Singh.

The temporary restraining order was denied, according to court documents. Representatives from the union and from the transit agency will appear in court March 26.

The VTA also submitted a proposed order to show cause and temporary restraining order that, if signed by the judge, would bar the union from continuing its strike activities, according to court documents.

“Unfortunately for our passengers, that does not allow for the workers to come back and therefore service to be reinstated,” said VTA Deputy General Manager Greg Richardson at a news conference Monday. “From the standpoint of the overall action from VTA to ATU, it does recognize the merits of the case and it is basically allowing for that to go forward on the breach of contract piece.”

In a statement Monday night, the VTA said that they believe the judge’s ruling means they met the initial burden to “show a likelihood of success on the merits of its breach of contract claim.”

Richardson added that the VTA will continue to pursue negotiations with the union to come to a resolution as soon as possible.

Singh said that the union waited for a call from VTA to return to negotiations Monday and Tuesday but had yet to hear from them as of Tuesday afternoon.

“I have no idea why we’re not at the table at this point,” Singh said.

Singh said that the union still expects the VTA’s bid for an injunction to be denied and added that the VTA will have to “prove that their claim is valid.”

“The union has a legal right to strike, and so that’s what we’re exercising,” Singh said. “Just as we stated before, whether its the governor’s office or the judge, the issue still remains that both parties are going to have to reach an agreement.”

Earlier Monday, Nishigaya temporarily denied the bid for an injunction due to noncompliance with court rules.

“The fact still stands that the hearing won’t be until another eight days,” Singh said. “Is the VTA just going to wait those eight days and see how things play out in court? That leaves the public with no service.

“At this point, I think the public sees what the truth is,” Singh added. “They are exploring every other option outside coming to the table.”