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)

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