GMAC Inc. v. Groth Bros. Oldsmobile, Inc.

Filing 16

ORDER re #7 Denying Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Referring Application for Writ of Possession to Magistrate Judge. (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/30/2010)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 GMAC, INC., Plaintiff, v. GROTH BROS. OLDSMOBILE, INC., Defendant. _______________________________/ No. C 10-1669 PJH ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER; AND REFERRAL TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA United United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff's application for a temporary restraining order ("TRO") came on for hearing before this court on April 28, 2010. Plaintiff GMAC, Inc. appeared by its counsel Andrew Elliott, and defendant Groth Bros. Oldsmobile, Inc. appeared by its counsel William Ghiringhelli. Having read the parties' papers and carefully considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the court hereby DENIES the application for the TRO as follows and for the reasons stated at the hearing. Requests for TROs are governed by the same general standards that govern the issuance of a preliminary injunction. See New Motor Vehicle Bd. v. Orrin W. Fox Co., 434 U.S. 1345, 1347 n.2 (1977); Stuhlbarg Int'l Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush & Co., Inc., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n. 7 (9th Cir. 2001). A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365, 374 (2008). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Here, plaintiff has not applied the standard set forth by the Supreme Court in Winter, and therefore has not met its burden as the moving party. While plaintiff has arguably established a likelihood of success on the merits of its first cause of action, it has not established that it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of the requested relief. Most notably, the value of the available collateral appears to exceed the amount owed to plaintiff by defendant. Along with the application for the TRO, plaintiff filed an application for a writ of possession. As indicated at the hearing, the court refers that matter to a Magistrate Judge pursuant to Civil Local Rule 72-1 for hearing and resolution. The parties will be advised of the new hearing date by the assigned Magistrate Judge. United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 30, 2010 ______________________________ PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge 2

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?