Wilson v. City of East Palo Alto et al

Filing 7

ORDER ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 10/11/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JEFFEREY ALAN WILSON,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO, et al.,
Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 17-cv-05825-SI
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER
Re: Dkt. No. 2

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

On October 10, 2017, plaintiff Jefferey Alan Wilson filed this lawsuit against the City of
East Palo Alto’s Rent Stabilization Board, Working Dirt et al., Karen Sue Brock and Patrick
Brock. Although plaintiff’s complaint is somewhat difficult to decipher, it appears that plaintiff is
currently involved in proceedings before the Rent Stabilization Board. According to defendant
City of East Palo Alto’s opposition to plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order,1
plaintiff is a former tenant of a property owned by Working Dirt located at 475 Bell Street in East
Palo Alto, California. The City states that Working Dirt leased the property to the Brocks, who
then sub-leased a room to plaintiff. In the ongoing proceedings before the Rent Stabilization
Board, plaintiff alleges that Working Dirt and the Brocks demanded excessive rents and violated
habitability laws at the Property. The City states that plaintiff prevailed at the initial level of
review, and that Working Dirt and the Brocks appealed, with a hearing on that appeal scheduled
for the evening of October 11, 2017.
Plaintiff has filed a motion seeking a temporary restraining order with regard to the

26
27
28

1

It is unclear from the docket whether the other defendants have been served with
plaintiff’s complaint and motion. The Court will address service of the complaint in a separate
order.

1

October 11, 2017 hearing. Plaintiff requests that the Court order the Rent Stabilization Board to

2

adopt two resolutions at the hearing that would, among other things, allow plaintiff to present “all

3

evidence” at the hearing, award plaintiff fines and a rental credit, and direct Working Dirt to

4

provide plaintiff with housing vouchers.
In order to obtain a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction, plaintiff “must

6

establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the

7

absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is

8

in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)

9

(citations omitted); see also Jones v. H.S.B.C. (USA), 844 F. Supp. 2d 1099, 1099 (S.D. Cal. 2012)

10

(standard for granting a temporary restraining order is similar to standard for granting a

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

5

preliminary injunction).

12

Based upon the record before this Court, plaintiff has not shown that he is entitled to the

13

requested temporary restraining order. Plaintiff has not demonstrated any basis for this Court to

14

intervene in ongoing proceedings before the Rent Stabilization Board. Accordingly, plaintiff’s

15

motion for a temporary restraining order is DENIED.

16

The Court will issue a separate order regarding the sufficiency of the complaint.

17
18
19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 11, 2017
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2