Bridgewater v. Hayes Valley Limited Partnership et al

Filing 17

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion for an Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Why a Preliminary Injunction Should Not Issue by Judge Claudia Wilken 2 3 (cwlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/21/2010)

Bridgewater v. Hayes Valley Limited Partnership et al

Doc. 17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. HAYES VALLEY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, et al., Defendants. / IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SHARON BRIDGEWATER, Plaintiff, No. 10-03022 CW ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR AN EX PARTE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT ISSUE

Plaintiff Sharon Bridgewater moves ex parte for a temporary restraining order and order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue to force Defendants to provide her housing in an apartment located at 427 Page Street, San Francisco, CA and pay her $1,350,000 in moving expenses, attorneys' fees and costs. A temporary restraining order may be issued without providing the opposing party an opportunity to be heard only if "specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition." Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A). "The standard for issuance of a

temporary restraining order is the same as that for issuance of a

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

preliminary injunction." (N.D. Cal.).

Burgess v. Forbes, 2009 WL 416843, at *2

To obtain a preliminary injunction, the moving party

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 Res. Def.

Council, Inc., ___ U.S. ___, 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008). It appears that Plaintiff was living at 427 Page Street with the assistance of the Housing and Urban Development Section 8 Rental Assistance Program. She claims to have been in "lawful,

peaceful possession" of the rental unit from January, 2005 through May, 2008. Comp. ¶ 1. Although not clear from the complaint, it

appears that Plaintiff was evicted from her apartment for failing to pay rent. In this lawsuit, Plaintiff challenges the lawfulness

of that eviction and Defendants' efforts to collect on their debts. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that a temporary restraining order or order to show cause should be issued. Her

claims do not appear to have any merit; however, even if her claims were cognizable, she has not shown why such immediate relief is necessary and appropriate. // // // // // // // 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Plaintiff's request for immediate ex parte relief is therefore DENIED. If Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction, she must

serve the summons and complaint on any Defendant against whom relief is sought. She must then file a properly noticed motion See N.D. Cal. Civ. R. 7-2.

under the Civil Local Rules.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 07/21/10

CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge

3