Gavin v. Arntz et al

Filing 11

ORDER by Judge Hamilton finding as moot 3 Motion for TRO; denying 7 Motion for TRO (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/8/2013) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/8/2013: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (nah, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 6 LYNN GAVIN, 7 8 9 v. No. C 13-0056 PJH ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER JOHN ARNTZ, et al. Defendants. _______________________________/ 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 Plaintiff, 12 Before the court is plaintiff’s request for a temporary restraining order enjoining the 13 swearing in of Norman Yee as the representative of District 7 on the San Francisco Board 14 of Supervisors. Requests for temporary restraining orders are governed by the same 15 general standards that govern the issuance of a preliminary injunction. See New Motor 16 Vehicle Bd. v. Orrin W. Fox Co., 434 U.S. 1345, 1347 n.2 (1977); Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co., 17 Inc. v. John D. Brush & Co., Inc., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n. 7 (9th Cir. 2001). 18 A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that she is likely to succeed 19 on the merits, that she is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary 20 relief, that the balance of equities tips in her favor, and that an injunction is in the public 21 interest. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365, 374 (2008). 22 Alternatively, the plaintiff may demonstrate that serious questions going to the merits 23 were raised and that the balance of hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff's favor, “so long 24 as the plaintiff also shows that there is a likelihood of irreparable injury and that the 25 injunction is in the public interest.” Alliance for Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 26 1135 (9th Cir. 2011). A “serious question” is one on which the plaintiff has “a fair chance of 27 success on the merits.” Sierra On-Line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 28 1421 (9th Cir. 1984). 1 An injunction is a matter of equitable discretion” and is “an extraordinary remedy that 2 may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” 3 Winter, 129 S.Ct. at 376, 381. 4 In this case, plaintiff has not met the requirements for a temporary restraining order. 5 Plaintiff’s request states only that defendants “infring[ed] on Plaintiff Gavin’s vote in the 6 election the conception of political equality that can mean only one thing: one person, one 7 vote” without providing any supporting factual allegations. The complaint itself alleges that 8 plaintiff received conflicting reports of her vote total in the Board of Supervisors election, 9 with one tally stating that she received 719 votes, and the other tally stating that she received 716 votes. In an election with over 35,000 votes cast, and where the declared 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 winner received over 9,000 votes (or over 12,500 votes, after ranked-choice voting rules 12 were applied), plaintiff’s allegations simply do not meet the four-part Winter test, and do not 13 justify the extraordinary relief sought. Accordingly, plaintiff’s request for a temporary 14 restraining order is DENIED. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated: January 8, 2013 18 ______________________________ PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?