Laws v. Laws, et al

Filing 18

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 6/13/2017 DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 13 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. (Michel, G.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILLIAM J. LAWS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:17-cv-00369-TLN-AC

v.

ORDER

CAROLYN LAWS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
This matter is before the Court pursuant to Plaintiff’s “Affidavit for Temporary Injunctive

17
18

Relief.” (ECF No. 13.) In light of Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court construes this as a motion

19

for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”). For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s motion is

20

DENIED.

21

I.

22
23
24
25

INTRODUCTION
On February 21, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint. (ECF No. 1.) He alleges as follows:
“I am the trustee for the Medora D. Laws Trust, filed in the
Superior Court in Solano County, FPR045231. The court, without
Due Process of Law ordered that the trustee be removed and that
the defendant become successor trustee and that the trustee’s
personal real estate be returned to the trust and sold.

26

(ECF No. 1 at 5.)

27

On June 12, 2017, Plaintiff filed his affidavit requesting a temporary restraining order.

28

(ECF No. 13.) In his affidavit, Plaintiff indicates that Defendant Carolyn Laws has “filed a
1

1

request for elisor in the . . . Superior Court on May 17, 2017 to have the property in question in

2

this case returned to the trust to be sold.” (ECF No. 13 at 1.) He further indicates that a hearing

3

is scheduled in that case on June 26, 2017. (ECF No. 13 at 1.) Plaintiff requests a TRO

4

“enjoining and restraining the defendant from interfering with or proceeding with any action in

5

the Superior Court, as this case is pending in Federal Court.” (ECF No. 13 at 2.)

6

II.

7

LEGAL STANDARD
The same legal standard applies to both preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining

8

orders. Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001),

9

overruled on other grounds, Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008).

10

Preliminary injunctive relief is “an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear

11

showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 22 (citing Mazurek v.

12

Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (per curiam)).

13

Plaintiff must show four things to receive a preliminary injunction or temporary

14

restraining order. Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. First, Plaintiff must show that he is likely to suffer

15

irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief. Id. Second, Plaintiff must show that he is

16

likely to succeed on the merits. Id. Third, Plaintiff must show that the balance of equities tips in

17

his favor. Id. Finally, Plaintiff must show that an injunction is in the public interest. Id. Plaintiff

18

must “make a showing on all four prongs” of Winter to obtain a preliminary injunction. Alliance

19

for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011). In the Ninth Circuit, courts

20

apply a sliding-scale approach. Id. Under this approach, a preliminary injunction may issue

21

where Plaintiff has raised “serious questions on the merits” — rather than a more complete

22

showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits — so long as the balance of hardships tips

23

sharply in his favor and he satisfies the other two Winter prongs. Id.

24
25

III.

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s motion fails both procedurally and substantively. Procedurally, Plaintiff has

26

not complied with Eastern District Local Rule 231, which governs temporary restraining orders.

27

Rule 231 requires, among other things, that the party seeking a temporary restraining order file

28

the following documents with the Court:
2

1

(1) a complaint; (2) a motion for temporary restraining order; (3) a
brief on all relevant legal issues presented by the motion; (4) an
affidavit in support of the existence of an irreparable injury; (5) an
affidavit detailing the notice or efforts to effect notice to the
affected parties or counsel or showing good cause why notice
should not be given . . .; (6) a proposed temporary restraining order
with a provision for a bond . . .; (7) a proposed order with blanks
for fixing the time and date for hearing a motion for preliminary
injunction, the date for filing the responsive papers, the amount of
the bond, if any, and the date and hour of issuance . . .; and (8) in all
instances in which a temporary restraining order is requested ex
parte, the proposed order shall further notify the affected party of
the right to apply to the Court for modification or dissolution on
two (2) days’ notice or such shorter notice as the Court may allow.”

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

L.R. 231(c). Plaintiff has not filed all of the required items. For example he has not filed
“a brief on all relevant legal issues presented by the motion.” Id. Additionally, his proposed
order does not comply with Local Rule 231(c)(7). His motion may be denied on these grounds
alone. See Holcomb v. California Bd. of Psychology, No. 2:15-cv-02154-KJM-CKD, 2015 WL
7430625, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2015) (indicating the Court had previously denied “plaintiff’s
motion without prejudice for failure to provide the required documents in compliance with Local
Rule 231(c)”).

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Substantively, Plaintiff’s request also falls short. None of Plaintiff’s submissions discuss,
let alone show, the balance of equities tips in his favor or that an injunction is in the public
interest. It follows that Plaintiff cannot “make a showing on all four prongs” of Winter. Alliance
for the Wild Rockies, 632 F.3d at 1135. The Court need not analyze each prong of Winter where
Plaintiff clearly cannot carry his burden. Martin v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., No. 2:16-cv01860-TLN-KJN, 2016 WL 4211520, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2016). In short, Plaintiff has not
satisfied Winter and his motion must be denied.
IV.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (ECF

No. 13) is hereby DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 13, 2017

27
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

28
3