Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-08434/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-08434-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

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

ANTHONY L. WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

U.S. AIRWAYS AMERICAN AIRLINES, 

INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-08434-JSC 

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S EX 

PARTE PETITION FOR 

PERMANENT INJUNCTION

Re: Dkt. No. 7

Anthony L. Williams sued his prospective employer American Airlines, Inc. in California 

state court asserting claims for race and age discrimination under the California Fair Employment 

and Housing Act. (Dkt. No. 1-1, Ex. A.)1 Defendant removed the action to federal court based on 

diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a), 1441.2 (Dkt. No. 1.) Now before the 

Court is Plaintiff’s “Ex Parte Petition for Permanent Injunction.” (Dkt. No. 7.) The petition is 

procedurally improper. Civil Local Rule 7-10, Ex Parte Motions, provides:

Unless otherwise ordered by the assigned Judge, a party may file 

an ex parte motion, that is, a motion filed without notice to opposing 

party, only if a statute, Federal Rule, local rule or Standing Order 

authorizes the filing of an ex parte motion in the circumstances and 

the party has complied with the applicable provisions allowing the 

party to approach the Court on an ex parte basis. The motion must 

include a citation to the statute, rule or order which permits the use 

of an ex parte motion to obtain the relief sought.

Civ. L.R. 7-10. Plaintiff’s petition does not “include a citation to the statute, rule or order which 

permits the use of an ex parte motion to obtain the relief sought,” as required. (See generally Dkt. 

No. 7.) On those grounds alone the Court denies the petition. 

Further, to the extent Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction his petition is premature

 

1 Record citations are to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the 

ECF-generated page numbers at the top of the documents. 

2 Both parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(c). (Dkt. Nos. 12 & 13.) 

Case 3:19-cv-08434-JSC Document 14 Filed 01/17/20 Page 1 of 3
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

because “permanent injunctions are issued at the conclusion of a case after an adjudication on the 

merits.” See AMI Builders, Inc. v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator Corp., No. CV 19-5677 PSG (PJWx), 

2019 WL 4221389, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2019) (denying as “premature” an ex parte 

application for a permanent injunction and construing application “as one for a preliminary 

injunction or a temporary restraining order” (“TRO”)). If the Court were to construe Plaintiff’s 

request as one for a preliminary injunction or TRO, it still fails. 

The standard for issuing a temporary restraining order is “substantially identical” to the

standard for issuing a preliminary injunction. Stuhlbarg Int'l Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush & 

Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001). “Under the original Winter standard, a party must 

show ‘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.’” All. for the Wild Rockies v. Pena, 865 F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th Cir. 2017) 

(quoting Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)). “Under the ‘sliding scale’ 

variant of the Winter standard, if a plaintiff can only show that there are serious questions going to 

the merits—a lesser showing than likelihood of success on the merits—then a preliminary 

injunction may still issue if the balance of hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff’s favor, and the 

other two Winter factors are satisfied.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Here, Plaintiff’s petition fails under either standard because he is challenging the 

timeliness of Defendant’s removal and does not address the underlying merits of his case.3 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s petition. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 17, 2020

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

 

3 The removal papers demonstrate that Defendant was properly served with the underlying state 

court complaint on November 27, 2019. (See Dkt. No. 1-6, Ex. C at 153-54.) Defendant timely 

removed the case to federal court 30 days later on December 27, 2019, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 

1441, 1446(b)(1). (See Dkt. No. 1.) 

Case 3:19-cv-08434-JSC Document 14 Filed 01/17/20 Page 2 of 3
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY L. WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

U.S. AIRWAYS AMERICAN AIRLINES, 

INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-08434-JSC 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on January 17, 2020, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by 

placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Anthony L. Williams

2811 Nicol Avenue #6

Oakland, CA 94602 

Dated: January 17, 2020

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

Ada Means, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

Case 3:19-cv-08434-JSC Document 14 Filed 01/17/20 Page 3 of 3