Herships v. Cantil-Sakauye et al

Filing 55

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying 53 Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/26/2017)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

HOWARD HERSHIPS,
Plaintiff,

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

CASE NO. 17-cv-00473-YGR
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

vs.
TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE, ET AL.,

Re: Dkt. No. 53

Defendants.
Plaintiff initiated this action on January 30, 2017, alleging certain civil rights violations

12

against defendants, related to the imposition of certain traffic fines and the subsequent suspension

13

of his driver’s license for failure to pay the same. (Dkt. Nos. 1.) Concurrently, plaintiff also filed

14

a motion for a temporary restraining order asking this Court to order reinstatement of his driver’s

15

license. (Dkt. No. 3.) The Court held a phone conference on February 6, 2017, during which the

16

parties discussed potential avenues for informal resolution of the instant action. (Dkt. No. 9.) On

17

February 13, 2017, plaintiff filed an amended motion for a temporary restraining order, in which

18

he made claims that defendants were refusing to participate in the necessary processes to resolve

19

his claim. (Dkt. No. 10.) On February 15, 2017, the Court denied plaintiff’s motion, explaining

20

that he failed to establish likelihood of success, or that he was likely to suffer irreparable harm.

21

(Dkt. No. 14 at 2.)

22

Now before the Court is plaintiff’s renewed motion for a temporary restraining order,

23

asking the Court to enjoin defendants from imposing all traffic court penalty assessments, fines,

24

and fees. (Dkt. No. 53.) Additionally, plaintiff complains that without his requested relief, he

25

would not be able to obtain reinstatement of his driver’s license. Plaintiff’s requested relief in the

26

instant motion appears at first blush to be distinct from his requested relief in his initial motion for

27

a temporary restraining order. However, essentially, plaintiff seeks to have this Court reconsider

28

its prior order denying his motion for a temporary restraining order.

1

“Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered

2

evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is

3

an intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263

4

(9th Cir. 1993). Local Rule 7-9(b) requires that a party seeking leave to file a motion for

5

reconsideration show reasonable diligence in making the motion and one of the following:

6
7
8

(1) That at the time of the motion for leave, a material difference in fact or law exists from
that which was presented to the Court before entry of the interlocutory order for which
reconsideration is sought. The party also must show that in the exercise of reasonable
diligence the party applying for reconsideration did not know such fact or law at the
time of the interlocutory order; or

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

(2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of
such order; or
(3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal
arguments which were presented to the Court before such interlocutory order.
Pursuant to Local Rule 7-9(c), “[n]o motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration
may repeat any oral or written argument made by the applying party in support of or in opposition
to the interlocutory order which the party now seeks to have reconsidered.” Reconsideration of a
prior ruling is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of
Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000).
As an initial matter, plaintiff did not obtain leave to file a motion for reconsideration, and
his instant motion is replete with arguments raised in his previous motion for a temporary
restraining order in violation of Civil Local Rules 7-9(a) and (c). Additionally, plaintiff does not
satisfy any of the grounds for reconsideration set forth above. Thus, reconsideration of the Court’s
prior denial of plaintiff’s initial motion for a temporary restraining order is inappropriate here.
In any event, even if the Court were to reach the merits of plaintiff’s motion for a
temporary restraining order, plaintiff would not prevail. Requests for temporary restraining orders
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 lnt'l
Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush & Co., Inc., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n. 7 (9th Cir. 2001). A
preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary and drastic remedy” that is never awarded as of right.
2

1

Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689–90 (2008) (internal citations omitted). Whether seeking a

2

temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must establish four factors: (1)

3

that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the

4

absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in his favor; and (4) that an

5

injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council Inc., 555 U.S. 7,

6

20 (2008). Plaintiff has not established that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim, nor

7

that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief.

8
9

Accordingly for the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s motion for a temporary
restraining order.
This Order terminates Docket Number 53.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

Dated: May 26, 2017
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3