Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-00552/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-00552-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

1

Case No. 19-CV-00552-LHK 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

JCFB, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-CV-00552-LHK 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

TEMPORARY INJUNCTION

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Re: Dkt. No. 46

On August 12, 2019, Michael Buesgens filed a motion for temporary injunction in the 

instant suit. ECF No. 46. Buesgens is not a Plaintiff, a Defendant, a Plaintiff Intervenor, or a 

Defendant in Plaintiff Intervenors’ first amended complaint, ECF No. 38. Thus, Buesgens is a 

nonparty to this suit.

Under Ninth Circuit law, District Courts “properly refuse[]” to consider any “motion [that] 

was filed by a nonparty.” Citibank Int’l v. Collier-Traino, Inc., 809 F.2d 1438, 1440 (9th Cir. 

1987). If “a party does not formally intervene, it does not have the right to be heard.” Greenbaum 

v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 2008 WL 11336781, at *1 (C.D. Cal. July 7, 2008) (citing Citibank, 

809 F.2d at 1440). 

Because Buesgens is a nonparty, under Citibank, the Court will not entertain Buesgens’

Case 5:19-cv-00552-LHK Document 47 Filed 08/14/19 Page 1 of 3
2

Case No. 19-CV-00552-LHK 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

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

motion for temporary injunction. If Buesgens seeks to participate in this suit, he must first move to 

intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24.

Furthermore, the Court notes that even if Buesgens’ motion for temporary injunction were 

addressed on the merits, Buesgens’ motion would undoubtedly be denied. A motion for a 

“temporary injunction” is construed as a motion for a preliminary injunction. Sparlin v. Bank of 

Am. Home Loans, 2010 WL 11474945, at *1 (D. Ariz. Oct. 4, 2010). The legal standard for 

granting preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order is “substantially identical.”

Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 (9th Cir. 2001). Specifically, 

parties seeking a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order must establish that: “(1) 

they are likely to succeed on the merits; (2) they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the 

absence of preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in their favor; and (4) a preliminary 

injunction is in the public interest.” Sierra Forest Legacy v. Rey, 577 F.3d 1015, 1021 (9th Cir. 

2009). 

Buesgens’ motion addresses none of the requirements for a preliminary injunction or a 

temporary restraining order. Rather, Buesgens’ motion mostly consists of statements regarding

people who are not parties to this suit, issues that have no bearing on the suit, and non sequiturs. 

For instance, Buesgens’ motion states: “James L. Lee, Jennifer S. Goldstein and Lorraine C. Davis 

transfer of conciliation failure.” ECF No. 46 at 2. The motion also states: “Do James L. Lee, 

Jennifer S. Goldstein, Lorraine C. Davis and Victoria Lipnic have the legal authority to decide no 

judicial review anywhere?” Id. Also, Buesgens claims that James L. Lee has a “secret and 

invisible settlement.” Id. at 3.

In sum, the Court DENIES nonparty Michael Buesgens’ motion for temporary injunction 

without prejudice. If Buesgens successfully intervenes in the instant case, he may refile his motion

for temporary injunction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 14, 2019

Case 5:19-cv-00552-LHK Document 47 Filed 08/14/19 Page 2 of 3
3

Case No. 19-CV-00552-LHK 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

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

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:19-cv-00552-LHK Document 47 Filed 08/14/19 Page 3 of 3