Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-02194/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-02194-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH W. CHAIT,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO, a Municipal

Corporation, GEORGE GASCON, in his

individual and official capacity as Chief of

Police of the San Francisco Police Department,

R. DELA VEGA, (Badge #1823) in his

individual and official capacity as a Police

Officer of the San Francisco Police

Department, RONNIE M. WAGNER, in her

individual and official capacity as a Police

Officer/Police Department Attorney of the San

Francisco Police Department, and DANIEL

YAWCZAK, (Badge #1810) in his individual

and official capacity as a Police Officer of the

San Francisco Police Department,

Defendant. /

No. C 10-02194 WHA

ORDER DENYING TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER

Plaintiff’s application for a temporary restraining order is DENIED. A plaintiff seeking

preliminary injunctive relief must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is

likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities

tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Resources

Defense Counsel, 129 S.Ct. 365, 374 (2008). Plaintiff here has raised no issue of irreparable

injury. The watches in question have already been returned to their rightful owners.

Case 3:10-cv-02194-WHA Document 18 Filed 05/26/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

This denial is without prejudice to a motion for preliminary injunction but such a motion

should only be heard after all parties have been properly served with a summons and complaint. 

The Court recommends that plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction be cogently and

clearly presented.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 26, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-02194-WHA Document 18 Filed 05/26/10 Page 2 of 2