Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01488/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01488-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAN AGAINST EXTINCTION,

Plaintiff,

 v.

H. DALE HALL, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 08-01488 SI

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER; GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO BE

ALLOWED TO CONDUCT

ELECTRONIC FILING 

On March 18, 2008, plaintiff Man Against Extinction, also known as Richard Max Strahan, filed

the instant application for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”). For the foregoing reasons, the Court

DENIES plaintiff’s application for a TRO. In addition, the Court GRANTS plaintiff’s request to be

allowed to conduct electronic filings, provided he properly completes the other requirements for

electronic filing. 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is a self-described conservation scientist who works to protect endangered wildlife

species, in particular whales and sea turtles. On March 18, 2008, he commenced this litigation against

defendant William Hogarth, Assistant Administrator of the National Marine Fisheries Service, and

defendant H. Dale Hall, Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges

that defendants improperly de-listed the Northern Right Whale as a listed species under the Endangered

Species Act and improperly created and listed two new species of whales in place of the Northern Right

Whale. As of March 6, 2008, the new species were listed in the Federal Register as the North Pacific

Case 3:08-cv-01488-SI Document 8 Filed 04/01/08 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

Right Whale and the North Atlantic Right Whale. Now before the Court is plaintiff’s application for

a TRO, filed the same day as his complaint.

LEGAL STANDARD

The standard for issuing a TRO is similar to that required for a preliminary injunction. See L.A.

Unified Sch. Dist. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 650 F.2d 1004, 1008 (9th Cir. 1981) (Ferguson, J., dissenting).

Requests for injunctive relief may be satisfied by either of two sets of criteria. The “traditional” test

requires the movant to: (1) establish a strong likelihood of success on the merits; (2) show the possibility

of irreparable injury to the plaintiff if the preliminary relief is not granted; (3) show a balance of

hardships favoring the movant; and (4) show that granting the injunction favors the public interest. See

L.A. Mem’l Coliseum Comm’n v. Nat’l Football League, 634 F.2d 1197, 1200 (9th Cir. 1980). The

“alternative” test requires that the movant demonstrate either (1) a combination of probable success on

the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, or (2) that serious questions are raised and the

balance of hardships tips sharply in his favor. See Bernhardt v. Los Angeles County, 339 F.3d 920, 925

(9th Cir. 2003). Under either test, the movant must demonstrate that there exists a significant threat of

irreparable injury. Oakland Tribune, Inc. v. Chronicle Publ’g Co., Inc., 762 F.2d 1374, 1376 (9th Cir.

1985). 

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s application for a TRO asks the Court to enjoin defendants from de-listing the Right

Whale as a listed endangered species and replacing it with the North Pacific and North Atlantic Right

Whales. Plaintiff makes no showing that he meets the requirements of either the “traditional” or

“alternative” test for a TRO. For example, plaintiff has put forth no argument suggesting why he is

likely to succeed on the merits, why the balance of hardships favors his position, or, most importantly,

why there exists a significant threat of irreparable injury if the Court does not order defendants to list

the Right Whale under the Endangered Species Act rather than the North Pacific and North Atlantic

Right Whales. Accordingly, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s application for a TRO. 

Case 3:08-cv-01488-SI Document 8 Filed 04/01/08 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

3

CONCLUSION

For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s application for a temporary

restraining order [Docket No. 5]. In addition, the Court GRANTS plaintiff’s request to be allowed to

conduct electronic filings [Docket No. 4], provided he properly completes the other requirements for

electronic filing. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 1, 2008 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-01488-SI Document 8 Filed 04/01/08 Page 3 of 3