Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-05472/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-05472-0/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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK R. SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

SUPERIOR COURT, COUNTY OF 

CONTRA COSTA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-05472-VC 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING 

ORDER

Re: Dkt. No. 15

Smith’s motion for a temporary restraining order is denied because he has not 

demonstrated a need for immediate relief. To get early injunctive relief, a plaintiff “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 Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20

(2008). In particular, a TRO is reserved for rare circumstances in which the status quo must be

maintained and irreparable harm prevented “just so long as is necessary to hold a hearing, and no 

longer.” Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Local 

No. 70 of Alameda Cty., 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974). 

On the merits, Smith has not provided “specific facts” explaining why it would be 

unlawful for the union to require him to complete an opt-out form to officially resign from the 

union. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A). 

On the issue of irreparable harm, Smith has not explained why he couldn’t stop the harm 

by simply completing the form, nor has he explained why, if he were able to prevail on the 

merits, he wouldn’t be able to recover money taken from his paycheck since he sent his letter of 

Case 3:18-cv-05472-VC Document 19 Filed 10/04/18 Page 1 of 2
2

initial resignation to the union. Cf. Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Comm’n v. National 

Football League, 634 F.2d 1197, 1202 (9th Cir. 1980). And any ongoing First Amendment harm 

Smith might suffer from the small payments taken from several paychecks is mitigated by his 

failure to show that the union’s opt-out procedure is burdensome or coercive.

For similar reasons, the balance of hardships and the public interest do not favor 

emergency relief. The harm to Smith from denying immediate relief is minimal. But the union, 

and by extension the public, has an interest in maintaining an orderly process for sorting out 

membership and dues issues in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Janus v. American 

Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, 138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 4, 2018

______________________________________

VINCE CHHABRIA

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-05472-VC Document 19 Filed 10/04/18 Page 2 of 2