Harbaruk v. Hogan et al

Filing 19

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/29/2015 DENYING 4 Ex Parte Application for Stay of Termination of Tenancy without prejudice to renewal. (Michel, G.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

HENDAZI HARBARUK,

12
13
14

No. 2:15-cv-1746 GEB DAD PS

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

THOMAS HOGAN, ESQ., et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19

Plaintiff Hendazi Harbaruk is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to
the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
On August 21, 2015, plaintiff filed an “EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR STAY OF

20

TERMINATION OF TENANCY.” (Dkt. No. 4 at 1.) In that application plaintiff seeks an order

21

staying the termination of his commercial tenancy until the court has issued a decision “as to

22

whether or not the Defendant names herein engaged in illegal discriminatory conduct . . . .” (Id.)

23

In this regard, plaintiff’s ex parte application seeks an order from the court granting him

24

injunctive relief.

25

The legal principles applicable to a request for injunctive relief are well established. To

26

prevail, the moving party must show either a likelihood of success on the merits and the

27

possibility of irreparable injury, or that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships

28

tips sharply in the movant’s favor. See Coalition for Economic Equity v. Wilson, 122 F.3d 692,
1

1

700 (9th Cir. 1997); Oakland Tribune, Inc. v. Chronicle Publ’g Co., 762 F.2d 1374, 1376 (9th

2

Cir. 1985). The two formulations represent two points on a sliding scale with the focal point

3

being the degree of irreparable injury shown. Oakland Tribune, 762 F.2d at 1376. “Under any

4

formulation of the test, plaintiff must demonstrate that there exists a significant threat of

5

irreparable injury.” Id. In the absence of a significant showing of possible irreparable harm, the

6

court need not reach the issue of likelihood of success on the merits. Id. Moreover, the court will

7

not entertain a motion for injunctive relief that is not supported by: (1) a declaration under penalty

8

of perjury on the question of irreparable injury, (2) a memorandum of points and authorities

9

addressing all legal issues raised by the motion, and (3) evidence of notice to all persons who

10

would be affected by the order sought. See Local Rule 231.
Here, plaintiff’s application fails to address his likelihood of success on the merits or the

11
12

possibility of irreparable injury. Moreover, plaintiff’s application fails to contain a declaration

13

under penalty of perjury on the question of irreparable injury or a memorandum of points and

14

authorities addressing all the relevant legal issues. Plaintiff’s application for a stay, therefore,

15

will be denied without prejudice to its renewal by way of a properly supported motion.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s August 21, 2015 application for

16
17

a stay (Dkt. No. 4) is denied without prejudice to renewal.1

18

Dated: September 29, 2015

19
20
21

DAD:6
Ddad1\orders.pro se\harbaruk1746.tro.den.ord.docx

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

If plaintiff elects to file a renewed application for a stay of this action, his application should
not only address the legal principles discussed above but also the arguments raised by defendants
in their motions to dismiss, which are currently noticed for hearing before the undersigned on
October 30, 2015.
2