Gorup v. Riggio et al

Filing 23

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. DENYING 18 EX PARTEAPPLICATION FOR ORDER TOSHOW CAUSE AND TEMPORARYRESTRAINING ORDER. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/23/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

BRANDON GORUP,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

JOHN RIGGIO, et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 16-cv-02419-HSG
ORDER DENYING EX PARTE
APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE AND TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER
Re: Dkt. No. 18

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s ex parte request for a temporary restraining order

12
13

and order to show cause for preliminary injunction.

14

I.

15

LEGAL STANDARD
The standards for issuing a TRO and preliminary injunction are the same. See New Motor

16

Vehicle Bd. of Cal. v. Orrin W. Fox Co., 434 U.S. 1345, 1347 n. 2, (1977). A preliminary

17

injunction is “an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the

18

plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22

19

(2008). “The proper legal standard for preliminary injunctive relief requires a party to

20

demonstrate (1) ‘that he is likely to succeed on the merits, (2) that he is likely to suffer irreparable

21

harm in the absence of preliminary relief, (3) that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and (4)

22

that an injunction is in the public interest.’” Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th

23

Cir. 2009). As a corollary to this test, the Ninth Circuit has also found a preliminary injunction

24

appropriate if “serious questions going to the merits were raised and the balance of the hardships

25

tips sharply in the plaintiff’s favor,” thereby allowing preservation of the status quo where

26

complex legal questions require further inspection or deliberation. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v.

27

Cottrell, 622 F.3d 1045, 1049 (9th Cir. 2010).

28

“These formulations are not different tests but represent two points on a sliding scale in

1

which the degree of irreparable harm increases as the probability of success on the merits

2

decreases.” Big Country Foods, Inc. v. Board of Educ. of the Anchorage Sch. Dist., 868 F.2d

3

1085, 1088 (9th Cir. 1989). But “[u]nder either formulation, the moving party must demonstrate a

4

significant threat of irreparable injury, irrespective of the magnitude of the injury.” See id.

5

II.

6

DISCUSSION
The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s ex parte application for a temporary restraining order and

7

preliminary injunction. Plaintiff has failed to meet the requisite standards warranting such

8

extraordinary relief. Moreover, Plaintiff’s application raises concerns better addressed to the state

9

courts, which are available to issue orders relating to an individual’s personal safety. See Cal. Civ.
Proc. Code. § 527.6 (governing restraining orders based on civil harassment, like the one sought

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

by Plaintiff).

12
13
14
15

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for a TRO and an order to show cause
why a preliminary injunction should not issue pending trial in this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 5/23/2016

16
17
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2