Roshan v. McCauley

Filing 7

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by Judge Jon S. Tigar denying 2 Motion for TRO; denying 2 Motion for Preliminary Injunction.(mll, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2023)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

PEYMAN ROSHAN,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 23-cv-05819-JST

v.
DOUGLAS R. MCCAULEY,
Defendant.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Re: ECF No. 2

12
13

Before the Court is Plaintiff Peyman Roshan’s ex parte motion for a temporary restraining

14

order and an order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue. ECF No. 2.

15

Roshan seeks to enjoin Defendant Douglas McCauley, the Commissioner of the California

16

Department of Real Estate, from continuing any proceedings to suspend or revoke Roshan’s real

17

estate license based upon the California Supreme Court’s order suspending Roshan’s license to

18
19
20
21
22

practice law. Id. The Court will deny both motions.
Civil Local Rule 65-1(b) provides, “[u]nless relieved by order of a Judge for good cause
shown, on or before the day of an ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order, counsel
applying for the temporary restraining order must deliver notice of such motion to opposing
counsel or party.” Civ. L.R. 65-1(b). Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that a
court “may issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral notice to the adverse party

23
or its attorney only if: (A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that
24
25
26
27
28

immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse
party can be heard in opposition; and (B) the movant’s attorney certifies in writing any efforts
made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1).
Roshan offers no evidence that he provided Defendant notice of his motion for a temporary

1

restraining order, as required by Civil Local Rule 65-1(b). Nor has he certified “in writing any

2

efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required” in this case, as required

3

by Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

4

While the Court has the power to issue an ex parte temporary restraining order, the movant

5

must show “that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before

6

the adverse party can be heard in opposition.” Henry Schein, Inc. v. Cook, 191 F. Supp. 3d 1072,

7
8
9
10

1076 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)). Roshan’s attempts to establish
irreparable harm are either too speculative or not imminent. For example, he avers that his efforts
to obtain evidence of the findings of the California Supreme have been denied, and that his
administrative hearing before the Department of Real Estate is set to be heard on December 4,
2023. ECF No. 2 at 18. Roshan, however, fails to demonstrate that any such evidence actually

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

exists, and he has not “clearly show[n]” that the loss of his license is certainly impending before

12
the adverse party can be heard in opposition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1).
13
14
15
16
17
18

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and an order
to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue are hereby denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 15, 2023
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2