Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02347/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02347-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

Case No.:14-cv-02347-NC 

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JIMMY PERKINS,

Plaintiff,

v.

NATIONAL EXPRESS 

CORPORATION, DURHAM SCHOOL 

SERVICES, L.P., PETERMANN LTD., 

AND KIRK TOSTENRUDE,

Defendants.

Case No.14-cv-02347-NC 

ORDER DENYING PRELIMINARY 

INJUNCTION MOTION

Re: Dkt. No. 60

Plaintiff Jimmy Perkins moves for a preliminary injunction against defendants and 

their agents. Specifically, Perkins requests that the Court restrain and enjoin defendants 

from their “[c]ontinuing failure to comply with the training requirements of California’s 

Fair Employment and Housing Act.” Dkt. No. 60 at 2. Perkins argues that “immediate 

and irreparable injury will result to Plaintiff and the public” if the Court does not grant his 

motion. Id.

A preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary remedy.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. 

Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction 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.” Id. at 20 (citations omitted). “[S]erious 

questions going to the merits and a balance of hardships that tips sharply towards the 

Case 3:14-cv-02347-NC Document 83 Filed 05/18/15 Page 1 of 3
Case No.:14-cv-02347-NC 2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

plaintiff can support issuance of a preliminary injunction, so long as the plaintiff also 

shows that there is a likelihood of irreparable injury and that the injunction is in the public 

interest.” Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011) 

(internal quotation marks omitted) (finding Ninth Circuit’s “sliding scale” approach still 

viable after Winter so long as plaintiff satisfies all four preliminary-injunction prongs).

In clarifying the need to satisfy the four-part Winter test, the Ninth Circuit stated

that “[t]o the extent prior cases applying the ‘serious questions’ test have held that a 

preliminary injunction may issue where the plaintiff shows only that serious questions 

going to the merits were raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff’s 

favor, without satisfying the other two prongs, they are superseded by Winter, which 

requires the plaintiff to make a showing on all four prongs.” Cottrell, 632 F.3d at 1135

(citations omitted). 

Here, Perkins fails to establish that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm due to 

defendants’ alleged failure to train their employees on matters relating to discrimination, 

harassment, and retaliation. Perkins’ best irreparable-harm argument is that defendants’ 

FEHA violations “continues to harm [him] in the sense that Defendants continue to fail to 

genuinely consider Plaintiff’s complaints about discrimination despite the statutory duty to 

do so.” Dkt. No. 73 at 4. The Court finds this reasoning unpersuasive. The fact remains 

that Perkins no longer works for defendants and thus is no longer subject to harm resulting 

from any failure to train employees on race discrimination. 

//

Case 3:14-cv-02347-NC Document 83 Filed 05/18/15 Page 2 of 3
Case No.:14-cv-02347-NC 3

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Perkins’ preliminary injunction motion. Having 

found that Perkins failed to satisfy a necessary condition for preliminary injunctive relief, 

the Court need not consider the likelihood of success on the merits, the balancing of

hardships, or the competing public interests. See,e.g., Becker v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 

Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152369, at *12-15 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2012) (analyzing only 

irreparable-harm factor in recommending district court deny preliminary injunction 

motion), adopted by Becker v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4177, 

at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2013).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 18, 2015 _____________________________________

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:14-cv-02347-NC Document 83 Filed 05/18/15 Page 3 of 3