Airbnb, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco

Filing 86

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER. Signed by Judge James Donato on 11/18/2016. (jdlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/18/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

AIRBNB, INC.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10
11

Case No. 3:16-cv-03615-JD
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
RE ENFORCEMENT

v.
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO,

Re: Dkt. No. 50

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendant.
12
13

On November 8, 2016, the Court entered an order denying plaintiffs’ motion for a

14

preliminary injunction on the online immunity and First Amendment grounds they advanced, but

15

deferring a ruling on plaintiffs’ challenges relating to fair enforcement of the Ordinance. Dkt.

16

No. 74 at 17-18. San Francisco acknowledges that an effective registration verification procedure

17

is not up and running. Id. at 17. Pending further evidence and argument, the Court has left open

18

the question whether to enjoin enforcement of the Ordinance until San Francisco has put into place

19

a feasible and efficient means of complying with it. Id. at 18.

20

In the proceedings leading up to the injunction hearing, San Francisco agreed to stay

21

enforcement of the Ordinance through the Court’s resolution of the motion. Dkt. No. 44. At the

22

hearing itself, in response to the Court’s questions about fair enforcement, counsel for San

23

Francisco reaffirmed the commitment to keep the stay in place and pledged that “[w]e’re going to

24

develop an enforcement plan. We’re not going to jump in before there’s an enforcement plan.”

25

Dkt. No. 72 at 48:6-8. San Francisco also filed a declaration by the Director of the Office of

26

Short-Term Rental Administration and Enforcement stating that he would “engage with Hosting

27

Platforms as partners to develop a mechanism, such as an [API], to facilitate real-time automated

28

verification,” among other efforts to create a usable verification system. Dkt. No. 60 ¶ 11. Based

1

on these and other representations by San Francisco, the Court anticipated that San Francisco

2

would abide by the stay pending resolution of the enforcement portion of the injunction motion.

3

Dkt. No. 74 at 18.

4

But San Francisco has now given indications that it will not continue to stay enforcement.

5

See, e.g., Dkt. No. 80 at 2. This apparent retrenchment concerns the Court because it threatens the

6

imposition of criminal penalties on plaintiffs, and other Hosting Platforms, in the face of serious

7

questions about the fair enforcement of the Ordinance, and will undermine the Court’s

8

consideration of the additional briefing and evidence called for in the injunction order. In

9

addition, at the November 17, 2016, status conference, the Court ordered the parties to a
settlement conference before a magistrate judge to discuss ways of resolving the enforcement

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

problems. Dkt. No. 82. Allowing San Francisco to unilaterally drop the stay and proceed with

12

enforcement actions at this time would unreasonably disrupt the playing field for the final

13

resolution of the injunction motion.

14

Consequently, to avert a threat of irreparable harm to plaintiffs, and to preserve the status

15

quo while the further proceedings on enforcement take place, the Court enters a temporary

16

restraining order enjoining enforcement of Section 41A.5 of the Ordinance through December 1,

17

2016. The parties are advised that, depending on developments, the TRO may be extended, or

18

other injunctive relief ordered, at that time.

19

DISCUSSION

20

The standard for issuing a TRO is identical to the standard for issuing a preliminary

21

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

22

2001). A TRO may issue when there are serious questions going to the merits, a likelihood of

23

irreparable harm, the balance of hardships tips sharply in favor of the party raising the questions,

24

and a TRO would be in the public interest. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d

25

1127, 1134-35 (9th Cir. 2011). The entry of a TRO is particularly appropriate “to preserve the

26

status quo where difficult legal questions require more deliberate investigation.” Lewis v. U.S.

27

Bank Nat’l Ass’n, No. 16-cv-05490-JSW, 2016 WL 5662030, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2016)

28

(internal quotation omitted).
2

1

These standards amply warrant a TRO here. Plaintiffs have raised serious questions of due

2

process and other concerns about the enforcement of the Ordinance, and the criminal penalties it

3

entails, without a viable means of compliance. See Dkt. No. 74 at 17-18; Dkt. No. 50 at 26-28;

4

Dkt. No. 64 at 13-15. To be clear, the Court has determined that plaintiffs’ First Amendment and

5

CDA claims did not show a likelihood of success on the merits or raise serious questions requiring

6

more litigation. Dkt. No. 74 at 17. This TRO goes only to the serious questions relating to fair

7

enforcement.

8
9

Plaintiffs face a likelihood of irreparable harm by being exposed to criminal penalties. The
balance of hardships tips sharply in their favor for that reason and because San Francisco will not
face any significant burden from a short continuation of a stay that it has previously agreed to

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

voluntarily. And the strong public interest in enforcing criminal laws in a fair and rational manner

12

weighs in favor of a TRO.
CONCLUSION

13
14

Consequently, San Francisco is enjoined from enforcing Section 41A.5 of the Ordinance

15

through and including December 1, 2016. The parties will file a joint report by 12:00 p.m. on

16

November 30, 2016, advising the Court of the status of the enforcement issue.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 18, 2016

19
20
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3