Saeed v. City of Fairfield, CA Police Dept., et al.,
Filing
9
ORDER signed by Senior Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 1/18/2023; DENYING #8 Motion for TRO without prejudice. (Deutsch, S)
Case 2:23-cv-00087-MCE-DB Document 9 Filed 01/18/23 Page 1 of 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
AHMED SAEED,
12
13
14
15
16
No. 2:23-cv-00087-MCE-DB
Plaintiff,
ORDER
v.
CITY OF FAIRFIELD, CALIFORNIA
POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.
17
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Ahmed Saeed’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for
18
Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”), which seeks to enjoin Defendants from enforcing
19
two recommendations that Plaintiff’s business license for his store Smoke Shop N’ More
20
(“SNM”) be revoked, and to reinstate said business license following a Notice of
21
Revocation issued on September 9, 2022. See ECF No. 8 (“Pl.’s Mot.”). For the
22
following reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.
23
The purpose of a temporary restraining order is to preserve the status quo
24
pending the complete briefing and thorough consideration contemplated by full
25
proceedings pursuant to a preliminary injunction. See Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v.
26
Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 70 of Alameda Cnty.,
27
415 U.S. 423, 438–39 (1974) (temporary restraining orders “should be restricted to
28
serving their underlying purpose of preserving the status quo and preventing irreparable
1
Case 2:23-cv-00087-MCE-DB Document 9 Filed 01/18/23 Page 2 of 4
1
harm just so long as is necessary to hold a hearing, and no longer”); see also Reno Air
2
Racing Ass’n, Inc. v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2006); Dunn v. Cate, No.
3
CIV 08-873-NVW, 2010 WL 1558562, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2010).
4
Issuance of a temporary restraining order, as a form of preliminary injunctive
5
relief, is an extraordinary remedy, and Plaintiff has the burden of proving the propriety of
6
such a remedy. See Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997). In general, the
7
showing required for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction are the
8
same. See Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush & Co., Inc., 240 F.3d 832,
9
839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001).
10
A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is (1) “likely to
11
succeed on the merits;” (2) “likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary
12
relief;” (3) “the balance of equities tips in his favor;” and (4) “an injunction is in the public
13
interest.” Winter v. Nat’l Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). “If a plaintiff fails
14
to meet its burden on any of the four requirements for injunctive relief, its request must
15
be denied.” Sierra Forest Legacy v. Rey, 691 F. Supp. 2d 1204, 1207 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
16
(citing Winter, 555 U.S. at 22). “In each case, courts ‘must balance the competing
17
claims of injury and must consider the effect on each party of the granting or withholding
18
of the requested relief.’” Winter, 555 U.S. at 24 (quoting Amoco Prod. Co. v. Vill. of
19
Gambell, Alaska, 480 U.S. 531, 542 (1987)). A district court should enter a preliminary
20
injunction only “upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter,
21
555 U.S. at 22 (citing Mazurek, 520 U.S. at 972).
22
Alternatively, under the so-called sliding scale approach, as long as the plaintiff
23
demonstrates the requisite likelihood of irreparable harm and shows that an injunction is
24
in the public interest, a preliminary injunction can still issue so long as serious questions
25
going to the merits are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in the plaintiffs’
26
favor. All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1134–35 (9th Cir. 2011)
27
(concluding that the “serious questions” version of the sliding scale test for preliminary
28
injunctions remains viable after Winter).
2
Case 2:23-cv-00087-MCE-DB Document 9 Filed 01/18/23 Page 3 of 4
1
Plaintiff is before this Court seeking a TRO—an order that by definition is intended
2
to preserve the status quo. The status quo, however, is that Plaintiff lost his business
3
license for SNM on September 9, 2022. 1 See ECF No. 8-6, at 1–4 (Notice of Revocation
4
issued by the City Manager’s Office for Defendant City of Fairfield). What Plaintiff really
5
seeks is an affirmative injunction directing that Defendants reinstate his business
6
license. That relief on the current posture would be inappropriate for a number of
7
reasons.
8
First, Plaintiff is seeking extraordinary mandatory injunctive relief on a truncated
9
TRO timeframe. Plaintiff received the Notice of Revocation on September 9, 2022, but
10
waited over three months to appeal the revocation to Defendant City of Fairfield on
11
December 28, 2022. 2 See Kline Decl., ECF No. 8-3 ¶ 10. Furthermore, Plaintiff did not
12
involve this Court until he filed his Complaint on January 15, 2023, and the present TRO
13
two days later on January 17, 2023. For purposes of a TRO, Plaintiff has a burden of
14
establishing not only irreparable injury but also a showing that said injury is imminent in
15
nature. Caribbean Marine, 844 F.2d at 674. The months-long delays in seeking relief
16
from either Defendants or this Court compel the conclusion that Plaintiff has not made
17
that showing.
18
///
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 It is unclear from the pleadings whether Plaintiff’s business license was revoked or whether
Defendants are threatening to revoke it. Compare, e.g., ECF No. 8-6, at 1–4 (Notice of Revocation issued
September 9, 2022), with Saeed Decl., ECF No. 8-2 ¶ 12 (stating that Plaintiff is “facing financial
catastrophe if [his] license is terminated on” the day the TRO was filed). If Plaintiff’s position is the latter, it
is well-settled that speculative injury does not constitute irreparable harm. See Caribbean Marine Serv.
Co., Inc. v. Baldridge, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988). Either way, the Court’s reasoning in denying the
present Motion remains the same. Given that Plaintiff is the one moving for such an extraordinary remedy,
it is his responsibility to adequately and explicitly state the exact relief he seeks and failing to do so will
weigh against a finding of injunctive relief.
According to the Notice of Revocation, Plaintiff “may appeal this revocation to the City Council by
filing a notice of appeal with the City of Fairfield within fifteen days of the date of this letter . . . describ[ing]
the reason why the decision of the City of Fairfield should be reversed or modified.” ECF No. 8-6, at 4.
When an appeal is filed, the city council “shall fix a time and place for hearing such appeal and the City of
Fairfield shall give notice in writing to [Plaintiff] of the time and place of the hearing.” Id. Plaintiff has not
provided any evidence or indication that the city council denied his appeal or that a hearing has taken
place. The Court finds it would be premature to issue the requested injunctive relief in this case before the
conclusion of the appeal process set forth in the Notice of Revocation.
2
3
Case 2:23-cv-00087-MCE-DB Document 9 Filed 01/18/23 Page 4 of 4
1
Second, the Court does not find that Plaintiff has demonstrated irreparable harm.
2
Plaintiff alleges that he has incurred over $85,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs, has lost
3
$488 per day in revenue, and has suffered reputational harm. See Pl.’s Mot., at 5–7;
4
Saeed Decl., ECF No. 8-2 ¶¶ 5, 7, 9–10, 12. However, Plaintiff provides no reason why
5
a legal remedy, namely monetary damages, would be inadequate to compensate him for
6
these alleged injuries especially since they are examples of harm where monetary
7
remedies are generally found to be appropriate. Ultimately, Plaintiff has not alleged any
8
specialized injury or irreparable harm that would warrant the emergency mandatory
9
injunctive relief he seeks.
10
Given all of the foregoing, it would be wholly inappropriate for the Court to grant
11
Plaintiff the extraordinary relief requested. This Court will not grant injunctive relief when
12
there are legal or monetary remedies available to Plaintiff. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion
13
for TRO, ECF No. 8, is DENIED without prejudice.
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
16
DATED: January 18, 2023
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?