Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02830/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02830-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 448
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights - Education
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

1

18cv2830-LAB (BLM)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES SAKAGUCHI, Guardian 

for minor MJS,

Plaintiff,

v.

HIGH TECH HIGH, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 18cv2830-LAB (BLM)

ORDER DENYING TEMPORARY 

RESTRAINING ORDER

The Court ordered Plaintiff James Sakaguchi to show cause no later than 

noon today why his motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) should not be 

summarily denied because it appears that California charter schools are not state 

actors for purposes of 28 U.S.C. ' 1983. If Sakaguchi has no federal claim, the 

Court would not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claim. 

Because his motion represented that each day the student, MJS, was kept out of 

school amounted to a continuing irreparable harm, the Court also directed him to 

explain what High Tech High’s vacation schedule was. He has now filed a 

response.

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:18-cv-02830-LAB-BLM Document 11 Filed 12/20/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

18cv2830-LAB (BLM)

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 order to obtain a TRO, a party must, among other things, show a likelihood 

of success on the merits, and a likelihood of irreparable harm if relief is not granted. 

See Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Under Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 65(b), a TRO can be issued without the adverse party’s being given 

notice and an opportunity to be heard only if the movant clearly shows that 

immediate and irreparable injury will result. Otherwise, notice is required before a 

preliminary injunction can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(1). Sakaguchi’s 

response says that tomorrow, December 21, 2018,1 is the last day of school this 

year, and classes will resume on January 8. At the earliest, a TRO could be issued 

tomorrow, which means that MJS will be out of school until January 8, regardless 

of the outcome of this motion. 

The response suggests that the situation is more urgent, however, because 

an expulsion hearing is scheduled for today at 1:00 p.m. This, however, makes a 

TRO even less appropriate. At the hearing, MJS might be afforded the procedural 

rights he now seeks. He might also be cleared of the disciplinary charges and the 

suspension lifted. Either of these circumstances would moot the need for a TRO, 

and possibly for other relief. He might also be expelled, which would change the 

nature of the claim. 

The TRO Motion is DENIED without prejudice. If, in Sakaguchi’s view, 

preliminary injunctive relief is still needed and appropriate after the expulsion 

hearing, he may file a motion seeking it. It should be filed on an ex parte basis 

(without first obtaining a hearing date) no later than December 27, 2018. Because 

Sakaguchi has already filed a response to the Court’s order to show cause, he 

 

1 The response actually says the hearing is to be held on December 21, but its 

reference to the hearing being “today” and on “Thursday,” along with the 

erroneous reference to December 20 being “yesterday” and “Wednesday” make 

clear that this is a scrivener’s error, and the correct hearing date is today, 

Thursday, December 20.

Case 3:18-cv-02830-LAB-BLM Document 11 Filed 12/20/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

18cv2830-LAB (BLM)

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

need not separately brief the jurisdictional issue in any preliminary injunction

motion that he files, but may incorporate by reference the response he has already 

filed. 

Assuming Sakaguchi files a motion for preliminary injunction by December 

27, Defendants shall file a response by January 3, 2019. In addition to any other 

arguments Defendants wish to make, they should address the jurisdictional 

concerns the Court addressed in its order to show cause. 

As soon as practical after the completion of today’s expulsion hearing, but 

no later than 10:00 a.m. tomorrow, December 21, Plaintiff’s counsel shall file a 

short notice stating the outcome of hearing. Defendants’ counsel may file their 

own short notice as well, if they wish, subject to the same deadline. These notices 

are to be factual, not argumentative, and must not exceed two pages. If no 

preliminary relief is needed, Plaintiff’s notice should so state.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 20, 2018

Hon. Larry Alan Burns

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-02830-LAB-BLM Document 11 Filed 12/20/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3