Lenkner et al v. County of Tehama

Filing 12

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 9/11/2017 DENYING 1 Plaintiffs' Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROBERT LENKNER, et al.,

12

Plaintiffs,

13
14

v.
COUNTY OF TEHAMA, a municipal
corporation; and DOES 1-50,

No.

2:17-cv-1839-JAM-CMK

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER AND
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

15
Defendants.
16
Plaintiffs seek a temporary restraining order (TRO) and

17
18

preliminary injunction enjoining Defendant Tehama County from

19

conducting hearings, assessing penalties prior to a hearing, or

20

carrying out an enforcement action pursuant to Tehama County

21

Ordinance § 9.06.035.

22

3.

23

from Defendant that they are in violation of § 9.06.035 and

24

penalties would begin to accrue against them, starting September

25

7, 2017, prior to a hearing on the matter. Lenkner Decl., Exh. 1.

26

Plaintiffs argue that the ordinance violates their due process

27

rights by denying them financial resources and interest in their

28

real property without procedural due process.

See Plaintiffs’ Proposed Order, ECF No. 1-

Plaintiffs are Tehama County residents who received notices

1

Mot., ECF No. 1-2,

1

at 4–5.

2

unlawful, warrantless searches.

3
4
5

Plaintiffs also allege a Fourth Amendment claim for
See Compl.

Defendant filed its Opposition on September 7, 2017, and
Plaintiffs replied the following day.

ECF Nos. 10 & 11.

To obtain either a TRO or preliminary injunction, a

6

plaintiff must satisfy the four-factor test set out in Winter v.

7

Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008).

8

establish that she (1) is likely to succeed on the merits,

9

(2) that she is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence

She must

10

of preliminary relief, (3) that the balance of equities tips in

11

her favor, and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest.

12

Id. at 20.

13

Plaintiffs have not shown that irreparable harm is likely.

14

See id. (holding that irreparable harm must be likely, not just

15

possible).

16

finding at a hearing.

17

Such monetary injuries are not considered irreparable.

18

Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Las Vegas, 745 F.2d 1211, 1213 (9th

19

Cir. 1984).

20

issue against Plaintiffs’ real property after an administrative

21

hearing which results in an adverse finding, and, then, only if

22

the assigned penalties are not paid within ninety days.

23

2–3 (citing Ordinance § 9.06.165).

24

Court would also delay further action.

25

alleged adverse impact on Plaintiffs’ real property interest is

26

speculative.

27
28

Plaintiffs will only owe penalties after an adverse
See Lenkner Decl., ECF No. 1-4, Exh. 1.
Lydo

Further, as Defendant points out, a lien will only

Opp. at

An appeal to the Superior
Id.

At this point, the

Plaintiffs also have not shown that they are likely to
succeed on the merits of their claim.
2

Although penalties begin

1

to accrue prior to a hearing date, Plaintiffs are not required to

2

pay any penalty until after a full administrative hearing, which

3

may be subject to an appeal that further extends the due date.

4

See Ordinance § 9.06.165.

5

procedure is insufficient under Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319

6

(1976).

7

compliance procedures amount to an unlawful search under the

8

Fourth Amendment, Plaintiffs’ brief is both factually and legally

9

insufficient to persuade the Court that they are likely to

10

Plaintiffs have not shown that this

To the extent Plaintiffs contend that Defendant’s

succeed on this claim.

11

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs’ Application for

12

Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction is DENIED.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 11, 2017

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3