Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-01407/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-01407-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 441
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Voting
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 1

 Citations are to the docket in Civil Case No. 06-02202 JW.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

In re: County of Monterey Initiative Matter

 and

In re: Monterey Referendum

 /

No. C 06-01407 JW 

 C 06-02202 JW

ORDER DENYING RANGEL

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR AN

INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL

On March 29, 2007, the Court issued an order (1) denying Rangel Plaintiffs’ request for the

convening of a three-judge court; (2) granting the Melendez and the Rancho San Juan Opposition

Coalition Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment; and (3) ordering Monterey County to submit the

initiative and referendum to the voters at the June 5, 2007 County election. (See Docket Item No.

73.1) Presently before the Court is the Rangel Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Injunction Pending Appeal

of the Court’s March 29, 2007 Order. (hereafter, “Motion,” Docket Item No. 76.) The Rangel

Plaintiffs request an injunction pending appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(c). 

(Motion at 2.)

Rule 62(c) provides, inter alia:

When an appeal is taken from an interlocutory or final judgment granting, dissolving,

or denying an injunction, the court in its discretion may suspend, modify, restore, or

grant an injunction during the pendency of the appeal upon such terms as to bond or

otherwise as it considers proper for the security of the rights of the adverse party.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(c). In considering a Rule 62 stay of proceedings to enforce a judgment, the court

Case 5:06-cv-01407-JW Document 75 Filed 04/26/07 Page 1 of 3
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

 Although the specific issue before the Ninth Circuit in Hodel was the standard to be used

in cases under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(g), the court suggested in dicta that the same

standard would apply in Rule 62(c) cases. Id.

3

 Phrased differently, the Rangel Plaintiffs have not shown that the balance of hardships tips

sharply in their favor, since the Court can later enjoin the enforcement of the referendum if

necessary. Accordingly, the Court need not consider whether the Rangel Plaintiffs have

demonstrated that their appeal raises “serious questions.”

2

uses the usual standard for considering a preliminary injunction motion. Tribal Village of Akutan v.

Hodel, 859 F.2d 662, 663 (9th Cir. 1988).2 Specifically, the moving party must demonstrate either

(1) a combination of probable success on the merits and a possibility of irreparable injury or (2) that

serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in the moving party’s favor. 

Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Comm’n v. NFL, 634 F.2d 1197, 1201 (9th Cir. 1980). 

In this case, the Rangel Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate a possibility of irreparable injury, or

that the balance of hardships tips sharply in their favor. The injury that the Rangel Plaintiffs

anticipate is that the referendum will pass “in an election that violates federal law.” (Motion at 6.) 

However, the injury is presently speculative: it will not occur unless (1) the voters approve the

referendum at the June 5, 2007 county election and (2) the Ninth Circuit reverses the Court’s March

29, 2007 Order. If the Rangel Plaintiffs do suffer this injury, the Court can redress it by enjoining

the enforcement of the referendum. Since the Rangel Plaintiffs have not demonstrated irreparable

injury, the Court need not consider whether they have demonstrated probable success on the merits.3

The Court DENIES the Rangel Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Injunction Pending Appeal.

Dated: April 25, 2007 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-01407-JW Document 75 Filed 04/26/07 Page 2 of 3
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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Fredric D. Woocher fwoocher@strumwooch.com

Joaquin Guadalupe Avila avilaj@seattleu.edu

John Andrew Ramirez jramirez@rutan.com

Mark J. Austin maustin@rutan.com

Michael J. Strumwasser mstrumwasser@strumwooch.com

Stephen N. Roberts sroberts@nossaman.com

Dated: April 25, 2007 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /s/ JW Chambers 

Elizabeth Garcia

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:06-cv-01407-JW Document 75 Filed 04/26/07 Page 3 of 3