Herships v. Cantil-Sakauye et al

Filing 14

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER; SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers; denying 3 Motion for TRO Case Management Statement due by 5/15/2017. Initial Case Management Conference set for Monday 5/22/2017 02:00 PM in Courtroom 1, 4th Floor, Oakland. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/15/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 HOWARD HERSHIPS, Case No. 17-cv-00473-YGR Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE, ET AL., Defendants. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER; SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE Re: Dkt. Nos. 3, 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 On January 30, 2017, plaintiff filed a complaint against the California Judicial Council, the 13 California Department of Motor Vehicles, and the Sacramento County Superior Courts alleging 14 that the same have violated his due process rights by suspending his driver’s license without 15 providing him with an ability to pay hearing. (Dkt. No. 1.) Concurrently, plaintiff also filed a 16 motion for a temporary restraining order asking this Court to order the reinstatement of his 17 driver’s license. (Dkt. No. 3.) The Court held a phone conference on February 6, 2017, during 18 which the parties discussed potential avenues for informal resolution of the instant action. (Dkt. 19 No. 9.) On February 13, 2017, plaintiff filed an amended motion for a temporary restraining 20 order, in which he made claims that defendants were refusing to participate in the necessary 21 processes to resolve his claim. (Dkt. No. 10.) 22 Requests for temporary restraining orders are governed by the same general standards that 23 govern the issuance of a preliminary injunction. See New Motor Vehicle Bd. v. Orrin W. Fox Co., 24 434 U.S. 1345, 1347 n.2 (1977); Stuhlbarg lnt'l Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush & Co., Inc., 240 25 F.3d 832, 839 n. 7 (9th Cir. 2001). A preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary and drastic 26 remedy” that is never awarded as of right. Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689–90 (2008) (internal 27 citations omitted). Whether seeking a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction, a 28 plaintiff must establish four factors: (1) that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) that he is 1 likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of 2 equities tips in his favor; and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Natural 3 Resources Defense Council. Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). 4 While the Court takes no position on the underlying merits of the claims, plaintiff has 5 failed to establish at this juncture that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims, nor that 6 he is likely to suffer irreparable harm. Accordingly, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s motion for a 7 temporary restraining order. 8 The Court SETS a Case Management Conference for Monday, May 22, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. in the Federal Building, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California, Courtroom 1. By May 15, 2017, 10 the parties must file a case management conference statement in accordance with the Local Rules 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 9 of the Northern District of California and this Court’s Standing Order.1 12 This Order terminates Docket Number 3. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: February 15, 2017 ______________________________________ YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 The Court also reminds plaintiff of his obligations to file proof of service of the complaint on the defendants in this action. Per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m)–(l), such must be served on defendants within ninety (90) days of filing a complaint, and proof thereof must be filed with the Court. 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?