Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-00228/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-00228-27/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

5:13-cv-00228-RMW

Order Denying Preliminary Injunction 1

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

ADIL K HIRAMANEK, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

RICHARD LOFTUS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:13-cv-00228-RMW 

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE 

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 

INJUNCTION

Re: Dkt. No. 205

Plaintiff Adil Hiramanek moves ex parte for a preliminary injunction enjoining the 

Defendant Superior Court of California from taking various actions allegedly in violation of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Dkt. No. 205. Although the proposed injunction is 

worded extremely broadly, and would enjoin the Superior Court from taking any action that is a 

violation of the ADA, Hiramanek’s request is based on alleged denials of access to the Court-Call 

telephonic appearance service by the Superior Court. Dkt. No. 205-2. 

First, the court notes that Judge Chen has previously denied similar injunction requests in 

this case. See Dkt. Nos. 29, 40. Judge Chen’s denials were summarily affirmed by the Ninth 

Circuit. See Dkt. No. 74. Judge Chen denied the requests for several reasons this court also finds 

persuasive. First, the proposed injunction is problematic because it is, in effect, an obey-the-law 

injunction. Such injunctions are generally disfavored. See EEOC v. Autozone, Inc., 707 F.3d 824 

Case 3:13-cv-00228-JD Document 207 Filed 04/24/15 Page 1 of 3
5:13-cv-00228-RMW

Order Denying Preliminary Injunction 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

(7th Cir. 2013). Second, there is no showing that Hiramanek will be denied the use of Court Call 

in the future, suggesting that he does not have standing to pursue injunctive relief. See City of Los 

Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983) (stating that “‘[past] exposure to illegal conduct does 

not in itself show a present case or controversy regarding injunctive relief . . . if unaccompanied by 

any continuing present adverse effects’”). Third, Younger abstention may apply, as Hiramanek is 

essentially asking this court to direct the state court’s management of its cases. See Potrero Hills 

Landfill, Inc. v. City of Solano, 657 F.3d 876, 882 (9th Cir. 2011). Younger concerns are 

especially strong at this point, because it appears that Hiramanek is seeking to force the Superior 

Court to hold hearings, and allow him to appear by phone, in all of his litigations. Hiramanek has 

been declared a vexatious litigation in state court, and directing the Superior Court to hold 

hearings in connection with his various filings may conflict with the Superior Court’s prior 

vexatiousness determination. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 391.7. 

“‘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.’” Alliance for 

the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Winter v. Natural Res. 

Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)). 

Here, Hiramanek has not shown that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence 

of preliminary relief. Nothing in Hiramanek’s papers suggests that he has actually been denied an 

appearance at a hearing. For example, Hiramanek contends that the Superior Court “made adverse 

rulings against me, even though I had previously scheduled a ‘Court-Call’ appearance, which was 

rendered moot.” Dkt. No. 205-1. Similarly, Hiramanek complains that “On or about Mar. 4, 

2015, Defendant made adverse rulings against me, while my pleas to appear by phone were 

ignored.” Id. There is no mention of any hearings taking place. Furthermore, the statement that 

Hiramanek had “previously scheduled” a Court-Call appearance suggests that he is actually not 

being denied access to telephonic appearances, when the Superior Court has a hearing. Courts 

routinely decide matters without a hearing, and it is not a violation of the ADA to do so. 

Case 3:13-cv-00228-JD Document 207 Filed 04/24/15 Page 2 of 3
5:13-cv-00228-RMW

Order Denying Preliminary Injunction 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

Hiramanek, in a supplemental declaration, also contends that the Superior Court did not 

accommodate another member of the public. Dkt. No. 206. Hiramanek does not have standing to 

bring ADA claims, or seek an injunction, on behalf of other people. See Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 

400, 410 (1991) (“[A] litigant must assert his or her own legal rights and interests, and cannot rest 

a claim to relief on the legal rights or interests of third parties.”). 

Furthermore, it does not appear from the record in this case that Hiramanek actually has 

any trouble appearing at the Santa Clara County Superior Courthouse. In his motion he notes 

filing papers in person and observing others at the courthouse. Most of his allegations in his 

complaint relate to events that took place while he was present at the courthouse. 

Finally, there is no basis for plaintiff to proceed ex parte. Plaintiff argues that the court 

should issue a temporary restraining order without notice to the Superior Court under Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 65(b). Under Rule 65(b), a “the court may issue a temporary restraining order 

without written or oral notice to the adverse party or its attorney only if . . . specific facts in an 

affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or 

damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition.” Here, as 

explained above, no such showing has been made. 

Accordingly, because Hiramanek has not shown that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm 

in the absence of preliminary relief, the motion for an ex parte preliminary injunction is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 24, 2015

______________________________________

Ronald M. Whyte

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-00228-JD Document 207 Filed 04/24/15 Page 3 of 3